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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

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.