Obviously you are not old enough since you are taking cheap shots like this.
It’s hard to believe anyone would so horrendously misread a nuanced film like this. I can only ascribe your absurd conclusions to extreme immaturity. Anyone who believes Gosling’s character was blameless is either a child or extremely ignorant of proper adult interactions.
I liked the film but really resisted going - not typically into a movie where I know I’ll be depressed by the end but it wasn’t as bad as I thought it’d be.
The only thing I didn’t really like about the movie was when they had the sign “Is this you?” maybe because I didn’t understand why the characters had the sign? It seemed like a very obvious message to the audience which kind of drew me out. Did I miss something that put context to that sign?
Okay, cut it out you guys. It’s not necessary to reenact the film in this thread.
Here’s a column about the film I read today. Not really sure what to make of it, overall. There’s stuff here I like, and some things, like the mental games Cianfrance apparently put them through, that I always find annoying. Self-indulgent. Unnecessary. Great actors get themselves there without that kind of bullshit. But then again I can’t really argue with the result, since this is one of my favorite films of the year and these performances had a huge impact on me.
Interested to hear what you folks have to say about this. And I’m happy this thread is here to discuss it. Thanks rajah.
-xtien
“Oh dear. I don’t think I found it.”
Is this what you define as proper adult interaction? Calling people names for having differing opinions?
Instead of trolling, why don’t you elaborate on all the flaws in Gosling’s character? We already discussed the doctor incident so I’d like to hear all his other flaws.
In the middle of the confrontation in the clinic at the end Cindy shouts something like “you go from here to here [raising her hand dramatically] just like that!” and he shouts back “the only reason you’re talking to me is because I’m here!” I don’t think she was wrong. I’m not the right person to break down a nuanced movie like this, as much of what of what I got I lack the context and nuance of my own to articulate, but that’s at least one thing I think we saw over and over with Dean. He couldn’t just talk about anything. Same thing when she mentions seeing the ex on their drive to “the future”; it’s an understandably awkward thing to have to react to, but he still manages to do a notably terrible job. He does twist her words, as she later points out, and pretty much shuts down every shot at honest and open discussion of their relationship.
And it’s not one-sided, she’s got problems too, but if you want specifics on Dean’s flaws, that’s a start.
I hammered out another paragraph about their issues, but I wasn’t happy with how I was saying it, so I’m gonna sleep on it and see if I can do a better job.
THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS
What?
Sorry. Not you. The posts prior. I’d had left this page open in an old tab on my home computer and didn’t see the latest reply. My post was in response to the general trolling / bickering.
I don’t know, before he even got to react wasn’t she already lying to Dean about him being fat? Why was she so nervous and making up lies? I suppose that could be read as fear of Dean’s reaction but I can’t really accept that as proof of anything.
I see the hospital thing as a last resort attempt by Dean. He tries to talk to her about their problems when they are alone together but she just doesn’t respond. She had no choice but to talk to him in that public place otherwise she’d just continue with the silent treatment.
I don’t know what to say other than what I already did on that point, we just don’t see eye to eye on Dean at all. And that’s okay, but from the other reactions in the thread, whether polite or angry, I think you’re going to be in the minority with that take on Dean.
I will concede that my perception of Dean could possibly be biased since I really like the character and can relate to him a little bit.
I liked him to some degree and related to him, but he also made me see a lot of the qualities that made my ex leave me. He’s kind of childish/immature, he struggles expressing himself and communicating with his wife. He also seems to lack responsibility and doesn’t really have much drive. He’s complacent and when he senses things aren’t right he misses he core issue and overcompensates with disastrous results.
Spoilers
Just saw this yesterday and it’s the classic situation where one person clearly has stronger feelings than the other. The imbalance is visible only as ripples at the beginning and they can settle down and even out but in Blue Valentine they don’t and the culmination is pretty severe.
He remains in love with her even though she’s pregnant with somebody else’s kid, he gets beaten up and a general lack of reciprocity. She stays with him for almost every other reason in the world except love.
More than flaws in their character, I’d say their flaws are in their choices(that are brought on by their pasts).
My BD of this arrived yesterday and I watched it last night. Excellent film in portraying the reality of the relationship in its infancy and near its end. What I found particularly interesting was that there was no showing of the journey through their relationship. It made it, I think, more intense in a way for there to be nothing for the viewer to latch onto as key moments when things shifted. It was all “this is how they were back when” and “this is how they are now.” We had to fill in all the intervening years.
It wasn’t as hard-hitting as I thought it would be for me, but I’ll attribute that to not being able to relate completely to either of the characters. Loved it all the same.
I’ll join the others in saying I think the film didn’t quite show why she was so unhappy with him. It’s easy to see why he is unhappy, but his main failing is that he’s unable to express himself. We have to deduce what’s eating her, because the worst thing we see him do before he blows up in the doctor’s office is lash out at her verbally when she mentions seeing her old boyfriend. It was really uncalled for, given what he knew.
I feel the movie really demands that you do a lot of speculation, so here’s mine. Her parents have a really awful, awful relationship. In reaction to that, she started having sex very early, because she was looking for the love she wasn’t getting at home. She’s drifted through a series of partners as a result. Her last boyfriend is abusive, probably because her emotionally abusive father is her model for a “loving” relationship.
Dean is, to be blunt, stupid. Nice, but much less intelligent than she is. He’s also not a guy given to violence or abuse, and due to her background, that makes him less of a “man” in her eyes. He’s not at all ambitious, and she wants him to be ambitious. The screenplay alludes to this before they even meet, with Ryan talking about how women look for their perfect partner, but end up with a guy with a nice job. She doesn’t need him to be rich or successful, but she wants him to be doing something with his life, and being a good parent doesn’t count.
Dean vaguely recognizes this, but because he’s kind of stupid, he doesn’t express it well. He gets angry that being a good father isn’t enough, but expresses it by lashing out at her. He gets that she expects him to hit her later on. His outburst of violence in the doctor’s office is about how he thinks she expects him to act. It’s atypical for him, but he’s trying to demonstrate he can be the “real man” she expects. It’s not what she wants, of course, but he’s not bright enough to realize that.
She’s not the “bad guy,” she’s just damaged, and little better at identifying and expressing their real problems than he is.
I can’t say I really enjoyed it. It does attempt to address some interesting subjects, but I can’t help but think it could have done a much better job making the journey there worth watching.
I’d definitely classify it in that funky aesthetic category where you like it without necessarily enjoying it.
I feel that the leap over the journey was making a statement about relationships in general, though. Sometimes, no matter what happens in the intervening time, feelings change. It’s not an earth-shattering revelation, for sure, and perhaps too simple and obvious an interpretation of the point. What makes Blue Valentine different (for me) is that it didn’t feel it needed to explain the why; it wanted the audience to believe in the characters and their emotions without us looking for answers throughout a story of years.
Perhaps I’ve interpreted your last line, wrong, however. Was it that you felt it needed to show more of the journey, to give the audience more of those reasons to latch onto?
I’m interested in watching the extras on the BD to see if they discuss any of this.
I don’t agree. I think that when feelings change, there is always a cause. The cause is frequently internal, or simply the honeymoon period wearing off, but there is always a cause. In Blue Valentine, Cindy’s feelings change, and the screenplay doesn’t spell out why, but it certainly gives us hints as to why, and I think it’s clear the authors expected us to figure out why, rather than just taking the change as arbitrary and unexpected.
I certainly wanted to see more of the journey, or at least a clearer view of what is going on in Cindy’s head. But that’s not really meant by my last line. What I meant is that the story telling could have been better.
When I’m watching a really good movie, I’m either entertained, or involved, or excited almost every moment I’m watching it. That’s not something I can say about Blue Valentine. It’s not boring, exactly, but it’s not that interesting while you’re watching it. Trying to figure out “why” afterward has its own appeal, but that’s because certain critical aspects of the relationship are deliberately opaque.
The dialog tends to be dull. For a reason, since neither one of them is terribly articulate, and Dean is kind of dim. A lot of his lines are simply repetition. Sure, witty repartee is inappropriate for this film, and the way they both blunder through conversations like the one after Cindy meets her ex in the liquor store may be realistic, but it’s not riveting, either.
When thinking about anti-Romance movies, “500 Days of Summer” comes to mind, and I enjoyed that one far, far more than Blue Valentine. It’s more upbeat, to be sure, but I don’t think that’s the key difference.
Perhaps your definition of cause is much broader than mine. After all, we can go right down to the biochemical reactions to explain away feelings if we really wanted to. I’m thinking of feelings changing in a way that can’t be explained, shown, or otherwise dramatized to another. Saying the cause is internal or that the honeymoon period wore off, to me, is saying the same thing as there was no cause: feelings changed, can’t explain it, it just happened, “it’s me, not you,” woke up one day and realized the feelings weren’t there, lost that lovin’ feelin’.
I’m not saying that there wasn’t a cause (or more than one) in the case of Cindy & Dean relationship. We can speculate, and you did a good job with your earlier points. I didn’t feel it necessary, though, for the film to give us the answers for us to understand that whatever feelings were once there are not there any longer; the journey didn’t matter. Showing us the stark differences between then & now is more effective in illustrating that point.
When I’m watching a really good movie, I’m either entertained, or involved, or excited almost every moment I’m watching it. That’s not something I can say about Blue Valentine. It’s not boring, exactly, but it’s not that interesting while you’re watching it. Trying to figure out “why” afterward has its own appeal, but that’s because certain critical aspects of the relationship are deliberately opaque.
The dialog tends to be dull. For a reason, since neither one of them is terribly articulate, and Dean is kind of dim. A lot of his lines are simply repetition. Sure, witty repartee is inappropriate for this film, and the way they both blunder through conversations like the one after Cindy meets her ex in the liquor store may be realistic, but it’s not riveting, either.
When thinking about anti-Romance movies, “500 Days of Summer” comes to mind, and I enjoyed that one far, far more than Blue Valentine. It’s more upbeat, to be sure, but I don’t think that’s the key difference.
That’s certainly fair enough. There’s no arguing opinion or personal taste. I like the realism of it, and I did find it interesting for the way it portrayed the relationship without trying to spin a happily-ever-after story out of it.
“(500) Days of Summer” (which I rewatched again last weekend) is a better film, I agree, but I would chalk that up to the fact that I can relate much more to it than I can to “Blue Valentine.” And yes, it’s definitely more lighthearted in its portrayal of a [much shorter] relationship, which makes it more appealing to an audience and, I disagree, is certainly a key difference. It has the take away message that “feelings change but life goes on and things will get better.” People like to feel good; “Blue Valentine” definitely does not give off happy vibes and without something positive for people to take away, they are bound to be grumpy about it. After all, who wants to hear “sometimes feelings just change and there’s nothing we can do about it?” There wasn’t a denouement showing any joy, no “hey, everything will be okay” banner waving in the final scenes. It’s over. And it was effective.