Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance, 2010)

[swo17]

When will you two stop fighting and realize that you're in love?

[domino harvey]

When will you two stop fighting and realize that you're in a love for our generation?

[mfunk9786]

And to think, I just thought I was being candid and helpful.

[knives]

Meh, I guess I'm having a hard time explaining myself again. I may have misunderstood him, but his line that I quoted said "Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view...", which is what I believe "isn't really true at all". Blue Valentine isn't about how men and women "often view" anything, as Dean's and Cindy's roles are largely reversed and thus the relationship's dynamic is entirely abnormal to the majority of society. This is different from Rabbit Hole, where the film does try to dissect the different ways how men and women "often view" loss. Does that clear things up a little bit?

One could argue the point that by reversing the traditional roles that Cianfrance has deliberately drawn audience attention to that aspect. That abnormality creates an interesting dissection on just the thing BrianC was talking about especially when near the end Gosling attempts to take a masculine role in their relationship. Even if their roles are reversed they're still given qualities typically associated with their gender.

[Jeff]

I don't really think that the characters in Blue Valentine (or Rabbit Hole, for that matter) necessarily need to conform to all of our preconceived gender stereotypes in order to explore how men and women react differently to traumatic situations. Human emotions are sufficiently complex that I can imagine Cindy wanting to take on what are traditionally male attributes (though I didn't see this nearly to the extent that James did) and yet still react to a situation as a woman. Likewise, while Dean may hold romantic notions of married life, he still takes on a stereotypical aggressive male role when he shows up drunk and violent and Cindy's workplace. His anger and jealousy manifests in growling and violence, much like when Howie confronts Jason in Rabbit Hole.

Again, I didn't see gender reversal being explored as explicitly as James did. I can see that it's there to an extent, but I don't think it alters the fundamental natures of the characters. I also didn't mean to imply that I think the characters are meant to imply "Man" and "Woman" archetypes as the overriding theme of either film. They both deal with the concept to different degrees -- Rabbit Hole obviously much more so. I was simply agreeing with Knives that they shared this thematic strand, and that I too was reminded of one when watching the other.

[Brian C]

Blue Valentine isn't about how men and women "often view" anything, as Dean's and Cindy's roles are largely reversed and thus the relationship's dynamic is entirely abnormal to the majority of society.

I did indeed see the film this afternoon as planned, and I didn't read this in the way you did.

First, I don't see how Dean and Cindy's relationship "is entirely abnormal to the majority of society." I'm not even sure you could begin to define what is, in fact, "normal to the majority of society," and even if you could, a few vague gender stereotypes don't begin to argue how these characters are "entirely abnormal."

Secondly, I don't see these characters like you do. Cindy is initially attracted to Dean because he's much different from her hateful and controlling father. Dean goes out of his way to make her feel special and valuable, and I think that his transformation over the years from that guy to the self-absorbed, borderline-autistic jackass that turns her away from him. She does feel that he's wasting his potential, but it's hard to blame her, as he subsequently all but admits his complacency and, by implication, that he's taking her for granted. She doesn't want him to take on a more paternalistic role in the way you seem to think of it - he just wants him to be a little plugged in. And when she does exhort him to "be a man" in the climactic office fight, she's appealing to what she thinks is his conception of what a man should be - perhaps you noticed that the second part of that command is to "stop bullying" her.

For his part, I think it's demeaning to attribute his general complacency to somehow taking on a female gender role. He's no longer, in the 'present' scenes, a "romantic" partner in any sense of the word except that, in his mind, he's accomplished his goals. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that, again, Cindy's frustration with him is that his "romantic" ambitions are so stunted, since he has no future plans other than maintaining the status quo for his own satisfaction and without regard for hers. His attempt to rekindle the romance with an overnight stay to a cheap fantasy hotel is clumsy in its conception and even clumsier in its execution, as she goes despite her protests, and they end up in a room that obviously has no romantic appeal to her at all. In other words, she comes across as more motivated by "romantic" concerns than he is.

And so, if we're trading in gender stereotypes, I would say that the movie fundamentally upholds tranditional gender roles more than it reverses or subverts them. I see a film about a selfish man who is concerned only with his own contentedness, and a woman who pines for the days when her man didn't take her so much for granted.

[James Mills]

And so, if we're trading in gender stereotypes, I would say that the movie fundamentally upholds tranditional gender roles more than it reverses or subverts them.

He complains that she cares more for her work than him and the kid (the usual complaint of a house wife). He doesn't want to do anything more than be with her and the kid (usually the sole desires of a house wife). She wants him to hit her during sex. She claims to being "more of a man" than him, to which his response "don't say that! Why do you always say that?" suggests that this is an ongoing theme in her head. She is the stern parent whereas he is the more lenient parent.

This is what you consider "upholding traditional gender roles"?

edit: What did you think of Blue Valentine btw? I'm enjoying the discourse about the film's thematics but I'm not trying to distract anyone form giving it some more love. I'm interested in hearing some criticism on it too, as I've already seen it twice and I'm still on cloud 9 (seeing it again Friday) so I'm probably missing some scratches through my rose colored glasses.

Gosling and Williams achieve the sort of authenticity that married couples might look at and identify as “the indie version of their relationship”. Really?

I wouldn't trust that link. I started reading it from the sentence you quoted and the very next line "In order to achieve the rawest performance possible, Cianfrance locked his leads up in a trailer together for a month before he began shooting." isn't accurate; from what I've read, they weren't locked up in a trailer (they stayed at the actual house they filmed the present at, Michelle leaving for her nearby home at nights) and it wasn't before they started shooting (it was after they finished the past scenes, as the month also allowed them to put on weight). Granted, I stopped reading after that.

[Brian C]

And so, if we're trading in gender stereotypes, I would say that the movie fundamentally upholds tranditional gender roles more than it reverses or subverts them.

He complains that she cares more for her work than him and the kid (the usual complaint of a house wife). He doesn't want to do anything more than be with her and the kid (usually the sole desires of a house wife). She wants him to hit her during sex. She claims to being "more of a man" than him, to which his response "don't say that! Why do you always say that?" suggests that this is an ongoing theme in her head. She is the stern parent whereas he is the more lenient parent.

This is what you consider "upholding traditional gender roles"?

edit: What did you think of Blue Valentine btw? I'm enjoying the discourse about the film's thematics but I'm not trying to distract anyone form giving it some more love. I'm interested in hearing some criticism on it too, as I've already seen it twice and I'm still on cloud 9 (seeing it again Friday) so I'm probably missing some scratches through my rose colored glasses.

I'll try to be diplomatic here, and simply say that this kind of thing is why so many people here don't like you. You address only the one sentence of mine that summarizes my comments, and don't address any of the arguments I actually provided. Then you top it off with a sarcastic flourish to express your incredulity that someone could possibly disagree with you.

So yes, I consider that "upholding traditional gender roles," and I explained why.

As for the film, since you asked, I didn't think much of it, for reasons that I don't feel the need to get into here.

[matrixschmatrix]

I'll try to be diplomatic here, and simply say that this kind of thing is why so many people here don't like you. You address only the one sentence of mine that summarizes my comments, and don't address any of the arguments I actually provided. Then you top it off with a sarcastic flourish to express your incredulity that someone could possibly disagree with you.

So yes, I consider that "upholding traditional gender roles," and I explained why.

As for the film, since you asked, I didn't think much of it, for reasons that I don't feel the need to get into here.

I did actually read your post, and I largely agree with you, but honestly I don't see what any of that has to do with traditional gender roles- maybe sitcom gender roles, where women are kickass go-getters and men are layabout slobs, but one of the things I liked about the movie is that neither character seemed largely locked into any kind of gender role, however they might think about themselves. I don't think it's particularly reversed gender roles either- I don't really think there's a traditional gender distribution for "the contented one" vs. "the ambitious one" at all.

It is interesting, though, that they both seem to believe in gendered ideas about what their partner would like- Gosling thinks Williams might like some shoddy 'romantic' gesture, as though he learned what works from sitcoms. Williams has some obvious knowledge about toxic masculinity from her father, but she doesn't seem to be able to apply it, and thinks she'll get Gosling to be more ambitious if she shames his manhood. It's a fascinating aspect of the movie, and something that seems all too familiar- people who reject gendered notions of what they should be, yet still harbor them about others.

[swo17]

He complains that she cares more for her work than him and the kid (the usual complaint of a house wife). He doesn't want to do anything more than be with her and the kid (usually the sole desires of a house wife).

I would think there might be a housewife somewhere on the internet right now to contest these statements but, oh, nope, too busy pining for her man, carry on.

[mfunk9786]

Remember that hit show about wives who couldn't wait for their husbands to come home?

[rs98762001]

The further you get into this film the more banal it becomes. Cinafrance's style works far better in the first half, where the shifts in time are subtle enough to keep you on your toes and intrigued, and the connection between past and present isn't so obviously spelled out. By the end, he's literally been reduced to intercutting their wedding with their final breakdown. It's about as blunt as you can get. Williams really gives it her all, but as in the case with Black Swan, the director's contrivances just get in the way of a fearless performance. There's also a truly awful scene - one of the flashbacks - with Williams' father at the dinner table from which the movie never fully recovers.

[Alan Smithee]

people who reject gendered notions of what they should be, yet still harbor them about others.

This is the only thing close to an interesting observation about gender thus far in this thread.

[James Mills]

I'll try to be diplomatic here, and simply say that this kind of thing is why so many people here don't like you. You address only the one sentence of mine that summarizes my comments, and don't address any of the arguments I actually provided. Then you top it off with a sarcastic flourish to express your incredulity that someone could possibly disagree with you.

So yes, I consider that "upholding traditional gender roles," and I explained why.

As for the film, since you asked, I didn't think much of it, for reasons that I don't feel the need to get into here.

You should chill out, sir. I didn't respond to your takes on their motivations or who's the good guy/bad guy between the couple because those are intangible and entirely subjective. I commented on the part that we were originally discussing and that I still don't understand, and I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or snide about it.

I would think there might be a housewife somewhere on the internet right now to contest these statements but, oh, nope, too busy pining for her man, carry on.

No doubt, I was referring to the traditional gender role of the house wife (ie stereotype).

There's also a truly awful scene - one of the flashbacks - with Williams' father at the dinner table from which the movie never fully recovers.

That wasn't a scene, it was a single shot, but I agree that it was the worst of the film (albeit not horrible imo). Something like that could have surely and probably happened in Cindy's past, but I agree that it was too expository to jump back in time to reveal the single most exemplary act of his insufferable sternness.

[matrixschmatrix]

I'll try to be diplomatic here, and simply say that this kind of thing is why so many people here don't like you. You address only the one sentence of mine that summarizes my comments, and don't address any of the arguments I actually provided. Then you top it off with a sarcastic flourish to express your incredulity that someone could possibly disagree with you.

So yes, I consider that "upholding traditional gender roles," and I explained why.

As for the film, since you asked, I didn't think much of it, for reasons that I don't feel the need to get into here.

You should chill out, sir. I didn't respond to your takes on their motivations or who's the good guy/bad guy between the couple because those are intangible and entirely subjective. I commented on the part that we were originally discussing and that I still don't understand, and I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or snide about it.

The problem is that you replied to him without addressing any of the actual argument he'd already made about the very thing you were contesting- if your point was that you thought the support he provided wasn't strong, or relevant, you should have said that. As it is, it comes off as though you only read the first line of his response.

[James Mills]

I did fail to address the rest of your post, Brian C, I apologize for that. I don't agree that he is mainly at fault, but one of the beauties of the film is that their conflict (and who we view is right or wrong) is completely interpretational and probably dependent on own empirical histories with relationships. I also agree that his anger and beer drinking fit a certain mold of masculine stereotypes, but I personally think there are more transgressions from other stereotypes (and prototypes) in Dean's character than there are examples that support them.

[Brian C]

I did fail to address the rest of your post, Brian C, I apologize for that. I don't agree that he is mainly at fault, but one of the beauties of the film is that their conflict (and who we view is right or wrong) is completely interpretational and probably dependent on own empirical histories with relationships. I also agree that his anger and beer drinking fit a certain mold of masculine stereotypes, but I personally think there are more transgressions from other stereotypes (and prototypes) in Dean's character than there are examples that support them.

Well, anyway. Since we're not really making up ground on that discussion, and it's really a minor point anyway, could you elaborate upon the seeming contradiction in these statements?

Its about the pains of questioning it, the pains of its maintenance that we're all so familiar with ...as the spectator can attest, the results certainly feel universal.

...the relationship's dynamic is entirely abnormal to the majority of society.

How can their relationship be at once "universal" and "familiar" while being "entirely abnormal"?

[Grand Illusion]

I'd like to echo James Mills's enthusiasm for the film.

Aesthetically, I really dig the split between the film and the digital footage. The film itself is grainy 16mm, and the grain bounces and dances about, especially in a touching nighttime scene where Dean convinces Cindy to tap dance. This constant movement of the grain reinforces the warm, organic nature of film. It also emphasizes the ephemerality of the relationship, like bouncing atoms decaying in entropy. Metatextually, I also couldn't help but be reminded of the oncoming death of celluloid itself as a medium, but that's really an entirely different reading of the film.

The actors are both every bit as good as the praise. They truly work to bring out the ambiguity in the relationship. Special credit should go to Cianfrance for his memory-based rehearsal techniques, because these characters truly feel as if they have the deepest of histories. Particularly Gosling does an excellent job where his character slips into emotional stability but refuses to cross certain barriers.

Spoiler

To the film's credit, Dean never once hits Cindy, despite, in my memory, her literally asking for him to do so. But the scene I'm specifically thinking about is the sex scene in the blue room. Dean refuses to have sex with Cindy's near lifeless body. It's an amazingly passive aggressive move by Cindy, played empathically by Williams. Dean then yells at her asking if she wants to be raped and refuses to do so. Demanding she be present, focuses on both his demands but also his moral compass.

Understandably, because of the nature of the improv, the script may be overlooked. The writing, however, is what makes this entire film work for me and truly sells the central conceit of the film, specifically the flashbacks. This is where I believe my most effusive praise is deserved. The genius of the film is that each trait of Dean that initially attracted Cindy is precisely the one that causes their impending doom. Despite physical depreciations, the characters remain the characters. Dean doesn't need to become a drug addict or a gangster or a villain or anyone radically different.

For example, Dean's Beta Male character is initially perfect for Cindy while she is coming off an angry break-up with the wrestling jock. Later, his lax attitude becomes a point of resentment for Cindy who requires Dean fulfill his potential. Dean's childlike joy is perfect for getting along with Cindy's impending child as well as a source of uplift for Cindy in her early trials. Later, Dean's childlike joy becomes immaturity with age. Also, his relationship with Frankie, the child, (because he can relate to a child) becomes a seed of jealousy, present in a single glance from Williams towards the end. And most subtly and most effectively, Dean's linguistic talents are turned against Cindy.

In the beginning, Dean uses language to pick up on Cindy's small talk. He is more than capable to take a single word and turn it into a comment or a joke. Not only confirmation on his ability to listen and empathize with Cindy, but his humor as well. Later, this becomes a wildly aggressive nitpicking attack on every word that comes out of Cindy's mouth. Everything becomes, "What does that mean? What does this mean?" For an uneducated character, he is an expert with words, and his ability to twist and manipulate the English language creates endless vitriol. The depressing truth that the film sheds light on is that people who are meant for each other in one moment are not necessarily good for each other later. The very things we love become the things we hate. Blue Valentine makes the case masterfully. It's my favorite English-language film I've seen this Oscar season.

[James Mills]

How can their relationship be at once "universal" and "familiar" while being "entirely abnormal"?

I said "Its about the pains of questioning it (love), the pains of its maintenance that we're all so familiar with," referring to the pains of love's aftermath being universal and familiar, not these two characters or their particular relationship.

Understandably, because of the nature of the improv, the script may be overlooked. The writing, however, is what makes this entire film work for me and truly sells the central conceit of the film, specifically the flashbacks. This is where I believe my most effusive praise is deserved. The genius of the film is that each trait of Dean that initially attracted Cindy is precisely the one that causes their impending doom. Despite physical depreciations, the characters remain the characters. Dean doesn't need to become a drug addict or a gangster or a villain or anyone radically different.

For example, Dean's Beta Male character is initially perfect for Cindy while she is coming off an angry break-up with the wrestling jock. Later, his lax attitude becomes a point of resentment for Cindy who requires Dean fulfill his potential. Dean's childlike joy is perfect for getting along with Cindy's impending child as well as a source of uplift for Cindy in her early trials. Later, Dean's childlike joy becomes immaturity with age. Also, his relationship with Frankie, the child, (because he can relate to a child) becomes a seed of jealousy, present in a single glance from Williams towards the end. And most subtly and most effectively, Dean's linguistic talents are turned against Cindy.

In the beginning, Dean uses language to pick up on Cindy's small talk. He is more than capable to take a single word and turn it into a comment or a joke. Not only confirmation on his ability to listen and empathize with Cindy, but his humor as well. Later, this becomes a wildly aggressive nitpicking attack on every word that comes out of Cindy's mouth. Everything becomes, "What does that mean? What does this mean?" For an uneducated character, he is an expert with words, and his ability to twist and manipulate the English language creates endless vitriol. The depressing truth that the film sheds light on is that people who are meant for each other in one moment are not necessarily good for each other later. The very things we love become the things we hate. Blue Valentine makes the case masterfully. It's my favorite English-language film I've seen this Oscar season.

I completely agree about the script being overlooked, as it is probably just as important to the film's effectiveness as the acting and direction. There are so many minor details to the script that are unforgettable and unpredictable while still being completely plausible:

Spoiler

Dean's job as a mover and his interactions with Walter perfectly contextualize his character. The idea of him accidentally leaving his pay on the corner of the desk only to appear to be stealing it when he gets it again is a genius way for them to meet, as it again develops his character subtly and concisely. As someone stated earlier, the use of the dog dying to put a clever spin on the cliche play/recital of their child is great too. And all of these are mere superlatives to the creation of both characters themselves, as their depth and pasts and how it developed them is so precisely planned out that the spectator is totally empathetic to both by the end.

Also, that is a very interesting take on his ability to pick apart single words and really incise into their meanings. You're absolutely right in that all of his jokes when first courting her revolve around this, he goes off what he hears and jokes about their interpretations. I didn't even consider this, let alone the fact that he does the exact same thing when arguing with her in the present. It's minor things like this that really make the screenwriting so fantastic, as if Cianfrance actually lived with these characters for the 12 years they were revising the script and just kept on adding specific traits.