This is a very guarded and qualified four-star rating. Derek Cianfrance’s Blue Valentine comes within inches of being the most incomprehensibly highly rated film of the year that leaves me reading all the glowing reviews and wondering, “What movie did these people see?” (That list includes In the Bedroom in 2002, Lost in Translation in 2003, and Sideways in 2005.) Usually, I can at least grasp why people are enthusing—without being in the least capable of sharing that feeling. That’s very nearly the case here. In some respects, that is the case here, but some scenes and the film’s intriguing use of a fragmented structure keep it from quite going there.
Do I like the film? No, I can’t say do, but I admire it and am intrigued by it. For me, it’s mostly 111 minutes spent watching the dissolution of the marriage of two characters I don’t like very much. On the surface, that seems like a recipe for disaster—and 20 minutes into it, I thought it was. In fact, I found myself wishing I could just walk away from it. But I stuck it out because, well, I didn’t have much choice. I’m glad of that, because the film—or the cumulative impact of its structure—grew on me.
Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams star as Dean and Cindy, a working-class Pennsylvania couple with a young daughter, Frankie (Faith Wladyka). Dean paints houses for a living. Cindy is a nurse. When the film opens Frankie is looking for her lost dog. Given the tone and the demeanor of the film, it’s not hard to realize this won’t turn out well. But then—and it’s just as well to know this upfront—nothing in this movie is going to work out well. It is, after all, a study of a marriage as it comes apart. To tell the tale, the film cuts back and forth between the marriage in its present state to six years earlier and the beginnings of the romance.
Very shrewdly, the two eras dovetail into their respective climaxes, and this is the major thing that makes the film rise above its dramatic limitations. And it’s hard to deny that the film has some serious limitations in that regard. Cianfrance is too taken with the shaky cam and with what I can only assume is improvised dialogue (it is difficult to imagine that anyone would actually write dialogue as banal as some of this). There’s an air of ersatz-Cassavetes about much of the film. That will be a plus for some. It is not with me.
There are, however, moments of charm—notably the ukulele scene where Dean sings “You Always Hurt the One You Love”—and there’s a strange cumulative punch. I said I didn’t like or care about the characters, and that’s basically true. Yet I cannot deny that by the time the film ended—especially during the closing credits—I realized a feeling of some kind, a sense that I had known these people, and the feeling that I understood what had happened to them, even without knowing why it happened. That is certainly an accomplishment worth noting. Does this mean I’ll ever have the desire to see Blue Valentine again? Let’s say I find the prospect extremely remote.
It’s necessary, I suppose, to mention the film’s sex scene, since it nearly earned the film an NC-17 rating. Having seen the footage that so shocked the MPAA, I can only conclude that the folks doing the ratings these days are a lot more reactionary that they were 30 to 40 years ago. Had these people been doling out the ratings back then, there would be a lot more X-rated movies than there are. The sex here is blatant enough, but it’s a far cry from anything that could rightly be called graphic. It is, in any case, not enough to warrant seeing the film if curiosity on this point is a motivating factor. Otherwise, yes, it’s a movie worth seeing. You may have fewer problems with it than I did, but bear in mind this is a bit of a downer. Rated R on appeal for strong graphic sexual content, language and a beating.
This sounds like a dour version of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER.
This sounds like a dour version of 500 DAYS OF SUMMER
It’s not that clever.
Whats the score like?
Never having even heard of Grizzly Bear before, I’m probably not the person to ask, but the music over the ending credits was effective.
Its better than 500 Days Jeremy, 500 Days was a little over rated and hokey.
This on the other hand is overrated and depressing.
I moved from Asheville two years ago and Ken Hanke is STILL pissing me off. Most vacuous and shamelessly reactionary critic I’ve ever encountered, and a blight on Asheville.
“Depressing” just the way i like’em.
What scenes used a shaky cam? The editing for this film was pretty great.
I moved from Asheville two years ago and Ken Hanke is STILL pissing me off.
One can only wonder why you are still reading and having your critical faculties insulted then. I am curious also as to the use of the term “reactionary.” This means what here? And how did you arrive at it?
“Depressing” just the way i like’em.
So I would guess. A lot of people think that means the movie is deep.
What scenes used a shaky cam? The editing for this film was pretty great.
There’s a lot of hand-held camera, which has no relation to the editing.
Reading this site is a good way to “work out” critical faculties, being insulted just goes hand in hand.
I haven’t read any reviews that mention the film having a hand full of funny moments.
Hand held doesn’t necessarily mean shaky and depressing doesn’t always mean deep.
Reading this site is a good way to “work out” critical faculties
I have no idea what that means.
being insulted just goes hand in hand
I never insult until I’ve been insulted — or when I encounter raging stupidity (and that usually earns sarcasm). I’d not say that Aaron A.’s introductory post here was exactly asking to be greeted in the spirit of good fellowship. That somebody keeps reading when it just pisses them off strikes me as on the masochistic side.
I haven’t read any reviews that mention the film having a hand full of funny moments.
I can’t say I recall any myself. Would you like to cite some?
Hand held doesn’t necessarily mean shaky
No, though here it did — at least more than I care for. I found it distracting. There has been some very fine hand-held camerawork over the years. And there has been some pretty bad non-hand-held camerawork, if it comes to that.
depressing doesn’t always mean deep.
Now, there we agree. And movies that are not depressing aren’t immediately shallow.
I moved from Asheville two years ago and Ken Hanke is STILL pissing me off. Most vacuous and shamelessly reactionary critic I’ve ever encountered, and a blight on Asheville.
I just so happen to work at a certain theater that is showing “Blue Valentine,” and I shall quote what the people of Asheville have been saying about it.
“It was riveting.”
“Wow, that was awful. I didn’t want to live through six years of their marriage.”
“It was depressing for depressing sake.”
“Kind of movie you watch if you want to be crucified.”
I shall note I haven’t seen the film yet, however, seems like 3/4 of the folks of Asheville have similar feelings as that of Ken. By your logic that I quoted there at the top, do you suggest the people of Asheville are a blight on Asheville?
Seriously, just because he has a different opinion than you (I can only assume that since you chose not to tell us why you liked the movie)he’s a blight?
How old are you?
Most vacuous and shamelessly reactionary critic I’ve ever encountered, and a blight on Asheville.
These are the reasons why I love his reviews.
I’m confused. You did like this picture, right?
He gave a four star review, if you liked the film then what are you complaining about? I moved to Greensboro years ago for college, stayed here, and still cite him as one of my favorite reviewers. Reactionary? If he didn’t react to films he’d be out of a job, though I don’t think that’s what you were getting at.
“Reading this site is a good way to “work out” critical faculties”
It means reading this site, if he doesn’t agree with your opinions on movies, then hes using his critical faculties.
“I can’t say I recall any myself. Would you like to cite some?”
One off hand that myself and the audience laughed at was when it cut to the cheap motel and there was an actual spaceship cockpit panel in the room.
He gave a four star review, if you liked the film then what are you complaining about?
What I never understand is how personally people take reviews. There was that one guy I thought was wanting to fight a duel over Observe and Report — even though it wasn’t my review (I admitted agreeing with the review, however). A little research revealed the poster had a writing deal in the works with Jody Hill, so that was explicable if not more than a little childish to show up under a pseudonym just to bitch out the critic.
It means reading this site, if he doesn’t agree with your opinions on movies, then hes using his critical faculties.
And if he does agree he isn’t?
The thing I liked most about “Blue Valentine” when I saw it last night, were the ending credits. And no, I am not trying to be clever here because that just so happens to be the end of the movie; I really liked the firework effect, photos, and music. Rather inspired (like a pretty screen saver). So, what did I think of the actual movie though? It’s just unpleasant, and I believe it misses its mark on what its trying to be, heartbreaking. That’s me anyway, because you can’t break my heart when I’m growing sick of these characters halfway through the film. The film does have its strong scenes, wonders (I hope I wasn’t the only one wondering where to find a hotel like that. And particularly, what the “Atlantis” room looked like) and I get where it’s coming from, but like “Requiem for a Dream,” I just don’t want to see it again. “Blue Valentine” is like being locked in car with no A/C on a hot summer day as your parents drive for 10 hours yelling at each other.
As usual the word “reactionary” is used by someone who clearly has no clue what it means.
As usual the word “reactionary” is used by someone who clearly has no clue what it means.
The internet’s like that.