Skip to main content

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

The result is that, even though Marriage Story derives from first-hand experience – the disintegration of Baumbach’s marriage to Jennifer Jason-Leigh – there is often an air of second-hand referentiality and artifice, be it in the compositions, affected careers in the performing arts, or the whacking great Scenes from a Marriage poster announcing “Yes, this is my major influence”. It isn’t unusual for artists to put themselves into their work – Allen and Stephen King are just the most obvious testaments to that – but with Baumbach, it has become a rather annoying tail wagging the donkey. Thus, Adam Driver’s Charlie Barber is a hotshot theatre director breaking up with wife Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), an actress intent on pursuing a TV career in LA, with their son Henry (Azhy Robertson), mainly identified by his toilet habits, caught between them.

There have been comparisons to Kramer vs. Kramer, presumably for want of another easily graspable touchstone documenting the familial effects of divorce, but Marriage Story doesn’t really compare in any kind of tonal way. Kramer vs. Kramer, as strong a feature as it is in many respects, is infused with undeniably audience-friendly beats that Baumbach, in his New York cocoon, largely eschews. He isn’t interested in the most accessible avenue, even if Randy Newman’s largely misplaced score is.

Instead, Baumbach’s film is acutely artistically self-conscious. Even as you are caught up in the characters’ conflicting perspectives, you’re aware of Baumbach the observer, calculated of intent and schematics, as he asks his performers to produce raw emotion on tap. Such conceits as the allusions to Charlie’s cast acting as Greek chorus to both play and movie flounder, as they are insufficiently integrated (a shame, as the inimitable Wallace Shawn is among them). Of course, Woody went with that idea wholesale in Mighty Aphrodite. The songs dumped in towards the end providing dual perspectives come across as a precious indulgence rather than anything remotely integral. And a scene in which Nicole notes she can’t cry on stage is followed by one in which she really cries. Because, like, you know, her emotion is genuine, and here’s the proof. A scene of their attempting to discuss matters without lawyers present quickly devolves into a slanging match in which Charlie punches a wall, wishes Nicole was hit by a bus and then sinks into a sobbing heap on the floor. It has power, but it simultaneously feels rehearsed; “This is what we plan to show in this scene, how warring couples say what they don’t mean and then regret it”.

Other choices are more successful, such as the bookended lists of positive qualities Charlie and Nicole have been asked to write by their mediator. We hear Charlie’s at the outset, but Nicole won’t read out hers; at the end, he finds Henry reading them and breaks down at the good things she finds in him. Several farcical episodes provide light relief: Charlie being served his divorce papers by Nicole’s reluctant sister (Merritt Weaver); Charlie being visited by an evaluator (Martha Kelly) and proceeding to lacerate his wrist.

If I’m emphasising Charlie there, it’s simply because he makes more impact. It’s been suggested by some that Baumbach sides with Charlie, and so pushes the audience in that direction, but I think there’s more than enough evidence that Marriage Story makes Charlie out to be single-minded, ungiving, lacking empathy – “Come on. You were happy. You’ve just decided you weren’t now” he insists – cheating and jealously competitive (even at the end, a year later, the beat he takes before congratulating Nicole on her Emmy nomination for directing – his territory – is very telling). So I don’t think it’s that. Rather, Charlie has been fashioned as a compelling character in a way Nicole just hasn’t. Johansson doesn’t help, of course, since she’s capably flat in all her roles. Her most engaging moment might be one of the most superficial, appearing as Let’s Dance-era Bowie for Halloween (and even then, who wouldn’t want to see Adam Driver as a Claude Rains-vintage Invisible Man?) Julie Hagerty, contrastingly, is fantastic as her mom, leaving you wanting more of her interplay with Charlie.

It’s also no coincidence, surely, that Marriage Story is at its most engaging when it most resembles traditional Hollywood fare structurally, rather than Baumbach flourishing his arthouse leanings. Which is anything involving the legal proceedings. Laura Dern gives a marvellous mask of insincere concern as Nicole’s lawyer; the only genuine quality she betrays is wanting to stick it to her opponents (of the 55/45 visitation rights she secures in Nicole’s favour, she says she didn’t want Charlie bragging to his friends that he got 50/50). Liotta, looking rather different to when I last saw him in anything, is dynamite as Charlie’s bulldog representation; “This is a street fight now” Dern observes of his hiring, and for a while there are dependably familiar courtroom fireworks. Prior to this, the picture charts budget-conscious Charlie’s growing frustration with the well-meaning, frail representation given by Alan Alda’s Bert Spitz (“I’m sorry Bert. Am I paying for this joke?” he asks during a particularly shaggy-dog anecdote).

If I sound a bit sour on Marriage Story, it’s more at the familiar Baumbach tics than the areas where he’s attempting to extend himself. This is an engrossing if overstretched drama. But as with Netflix’s other big awards hopeful The Irishman, I don’t think it truly merits its hype. The ubiquitous Driver is naturally very good, while the picture’s perfectly pitched when charting the legal abyss the couple enter – I’m still unclear how either were able to afford to divorce, mind – but Baumbach also insists on incorporating his pretensions, and ultimately Marriage Story would have been better if he’d spared us all.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

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.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.