So just saw this, and yeah the film takes Charlie's (Adam driver) side. Maybe not explicitly, but the manner in which Charlie processes the actions which Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) takes - not only to break free but to start building herself up - as a shock, as betrayal, is also meant to register with the audience. Of course this is as a result, as Nicole later confesses, that Charlie had always had his way in their relationship, from his unfulfilled promise to let the family move to LA, and his endless postponing of Nicole's directorial debut, to Nicole always deferring to him. Without Nora (Laura Dern), Charlie would have had his way again. Even more, Charlie refuses to acknowledge Nicole's reason for wanting to breakup, and his cheating is hand-waved away.
I wouldn't say I liked the film - not for the reasons listed above in particular though.
I know the movie tried to preswnt them as equals, there is no right or wrong but upon my viewing of the film, I think it failed at it. Bacon mentions that
ScarJo would backstab Driver during the divorce but... In all honesty, he deserved it. he's the cheater here and I couldn't really muster any sympathy for him, even though Driver really tried and gave a great performance.
Screwing someone over and not being trurhful toward someone else who has done the same to you isn't the best move to have people feel for you. Its escalating the situation. She makes it clear she appreciafes his fathering of Henry, but when she gets with Nora, the intent is to get full custody of him - a move that rightfully blindsided Charlie because they decided to not get lawyers involved.
Charlie should not be as sympathetic as he is because of how the relationship went but the film kind of ensures that ScarJo becomes equally dislikable, which only makes both characters nasty and dishonest.
The point of the movie is that they are both broken, hurt people lashing out at their relationship and one another in ugly ways. It does not "sympathize" with one more than the other.
The film presenting arguments to attack and defend both characters doesn't mean we as an audience should not take side. On the contrary, what I find interesting is to discuss where to put the blame, obviously they both have a share, but which is the biggest? That's what I like about this kind of film, like the famous breakup in Friends where some would side with Ross, some with Rachel. If everybody sides with the same character, then the writer has failed. People on the forum disagreeing about whether the film is on his or her side (even if they should rather phrase it : "the film made me on his/her side) proves that the film succeeded.
The point of the movie is that they are both broken, hurt people lashing out at their relationship and one another in ugly ways. It does not "sympathize" with one more than the other.
-Vader
I still disagree. And I'm able to.
The film purposefully distances the audience from Nicole's side half way through and you see the weight the divorce takes on Charlie for the rest of the film. Nicole comes out on top because her lawyer does things she doesn't want, but she never once does anything to stand up for herself against Dern.
I'm almost certain Charlie has that benefit because of how personal he is to Noah B himself.
I know a fella who has recently started a relationship and they are very much into each other, but he saw this the other night and it has made him very concerned about the future all of the sudden.
Because if things can get so ugly between two such cool likeable people who really love each other, then how much hope the rest of us have?
I know a fella who has recently started a relationship and they are very much into each other, but he saw this the other night and it has made him very concerned about the future all of the sudden.
Because if things can get so ugly between two such cool likeable people who really love each other, then how much hope the rest of us have?
