BEFORE: OK, now I face a dilemma - it's clear to me now that when I programmed January, I was trying to stretch out the chain I had in order to fill the whole month, and not re-work things. So it made sense to include all THREE of the films with this name, that are essentially all re-cuttings of the same material. (Umm, I think, I don't really want to read too far into the synopsis, to avoid spoilers...). But now that I'm up against it, do I really want to spend THREE slots on the same story? These first two films (Him & Her) were released simultaneously, but then I read that the director, after watching both, decided to just make a third cut, which was released as "Them" - am I going to gain some greater understanding after watching all three in a row, or is it just going to make me upset that the story couldn't be told from two points of view in the first place? I guess we're about to find out.
On the upside, no matter what happens, I'll clear three films from my Netflix queue this way. However, the Netflix films are not part of my main watchlist, so this doesn't clear any slots there.
But then, the second dilemma - which one should I watch first, "Him" or "Her"? Which screened first at film festivals, or was that not the way they were presented? Again, the synopsis might offer a clue, but I don't want to learn too much in advance. So maybe "Her", which comes first alphabetically? No, maybe "Him", because I just came off a very McAvoy-heavy film and I could justify linking between them. But then again, "ladies first", so maybe it should be "Her"? Yeah, but on both posters it's "Him & Her", not "Her & Him", so "Him" goes first.
James McAvoy carries over for film #3 out of 5.
THE PLOT: Told from the male perspective, the story of a couple trying to reclaim the life and love they once knew and pick up the pieces of a past that may be too far gone.
AFTER: After watching the kidnappings in "Split", I feared the worst when I thought about the use of the word "disappearance" here, but thankfully the titular Eleanor does not meet with foul play, it's a relief to learn that the disappearance is of her own choosing. So that means this is just a complex relationship drama, and could serve as a good sort of lead-in for the February programming.
But why does she drop out of life for a while, taking a break from the relationship? Ah, there is a reason, but it takes a while for the film to get around to revealing that, perhaps as it should be. The tragedy that strained the relationship is just one of many, I think, Conor's failing restaurant, and presumably the schedule that requires him to be away from Eleanor every night is tangential to that. Anyone in the service industry, or who has to keep crazy hours as a policeman, fireman, doctor or nurse can probably sympathize.
And anyone's who's been in a relationship that's circled the drain can probably find something in common with Eleanor and Conor. Maybe this film will end up speaking personally more to me just because it's from the male perspective - that feeling when your wife says she wants to go find herself and you have to resist the urge to scream back "But, you're RIGHT THERE!". Or when she suggests that you should go out and have an affair, which seems like it comes out of left field, but is probably a trap rather than a genuine offer, or is possibly a sign that she's already had one herself. Either way, she really doesn't mean that. Umm, unless she does.
That's the thing that will drive you crazy as a relationship is failing, the uncertainty. Do you try to hold on tighter, or learn to let go? When she does go, does she want you to try and find her, or not? Which course of action will benefit the relationship better in the long-term or is it time to start thinking about what's best for you as an individual again? And is there a way to track down your wife without looking like a desperate stalker?
These dilemmas are mirrored somewhat in Conor's restaurant situation - is it better to keep the under-performing bar/restaurant that might get a good review someday and take off, or cut his losses and use his connection to his father to get a real job at a restaurant with a more active clientele? (I did watch two films last year that also explored this exact conundrum, "Chef" and "Burnt", although they offered different solutions.).
I'm going to give this one a tentative rating based on how "real" it all felt, but I reserve the right to revise the ratings later, if this whole thing goes off the rails somehow in the second film. Just knowing that there's another side to this story, however, can't help but make this film feel incomplete, and I wonder if that's what led to the re-cut.
Also starring Jessica Chastain (last seen in "The Huntsman: Winter's War"), Bill Hader (last seen in "Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping"), Ciaran Hinds (last seen in "Silence"), Nina Arianda (last seen in "Midnight in Paris"), Viola Davis (last seen in "Blackhat"), Isabelle Huppert (last seen in "Heaven's Gate"), Nikki M. James, Christian Coulson (last seen in "The Hours"), Isabelle McNally.
RATING: 6 out of 10 unpaid bills
No comments:
Post a Comment