(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNziNOaS.jpg&hash=c8e15cbff633740fdec038e2c028c3c0de7dc7a8)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfN8iRnS.jpg&hash=c74975e97f29199ec8707bf2a8ce5dd4c13c9e36)
The film follows Sandra, a young woman assisted by her husband, who has only one weekend to convince her colleagues to give up their bonuses so that she can keep her job.
Directed by Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
Starring Marion Cotillard, Fabrizio Rongione, and Olivier Gourmet
Release Date - December 24, 2014 (limited)
Trailer (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-first-trailer-for-dardennes-cannes-entry-two-days-one-night-starring-marion-cotillard-20140417)
UK Blu-ray (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00M316CE2/dvdbeaver-21/ref=nosim) from Artificial Eye on October 20, 2014
This is a fantastic film. I wrote about it at length on my blog but the Dardenne brothers are doing some fantastic work.
Limited release on December 24
This was beautiful and major Dardennes.
What made me want to bump this was pete in the Birdman thread:
Quote from: pete on Birdman
I wanted to love it. I also wanted to love Whiplash. It's been a pretty disappointing season thus far.
This movie is the perfect antidote to award season fluff and just so relentlessly lovable.
My favorite of the year.
Finally saw this, my first Dardennes. Really good flick and reminder that Cotillard is the most naturally beautiful actress currently at large. Don't think she wore any makeup throughout. Not sure I can give up a bonus stack if some cukoo collegue's job was on the line. Then again if it was Cotillard...
My first Dardennes too. Cotillard is what made this watchable for me, otherwise I'm not sure I would've been able to get through it. Watching essentially the same situation play out like 8 times with different people was just not interesting to me. Was there something in the repetition that made it so transcendent for everyone else? Because I thought it was stretching a thin premise of a good 25-40 minute short film to feature length.
Spoilers
Cotillard's character going from employee to employee is a playing out of Christ going through the stations of the cross before his crucifixion. Yes, there is an uncontrollable element of repitition to the basic saga, but she has to struggle through seeing everyone and asking them for the most uncomfortable thing. It's a brutal process of pain that allows her to find herself at the end. The Dardennes love religious symbolism in their stories and this is an easy one to identify. Weeding out details, each episode does play out a little differently. One may argue the details of difference are minimal and that's fine but I think the major process is slowly seeing Cotillard get more punished each time and how she comes to find the necessary courage at the end. The simple structure does allow it to be a true showcase performance for Cotillard and she definitely is amazing.
a remark that'll rattle the equilibrium of xixax that's under constant rattling: i enjoyed this movie and think it's impressively made, and during it i kept watching to rewatch rosetta instead. that's how i feel
yes, marion cotillard is the main reason this film works and to be honest, she's the only reason I would ever rewatch it. this isn't the best the dardennes can do, just like kid in a bike. but it's still pretty solid.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on February 10, 2015, 04:22:13 PM
Spoilers
Cotillard's character going from employee to employee is a playing out of Christ going through the stations of the cross before his crucifixion. Yes, there is an uncontrollable element of repitition to the basic saga, but she has to struggle through seeing everyone and asking them for the most uncomfortable thing. It's a brutal process of pain that allows her to find herself at the end. The Dardennes love religious symbolism in their stories and this is an easy one to identify. Weeding out details, each episode does play out a little differently. One may argue the details of difference are minimal and that's fine but I think the major process is slowly seeing Cotillard get more punished each time and how she comes to find the necessary courage at the end. The simple structure does allow it to be a true showcase performance for Cotillard and she definitely is amazing.
Trolling or genuine cinephilia gone out-of-control? I can rarely tell the difference.
Quote from: Tortuga on February 11, 2015, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on February 10, 2015, 04:22:13 PM
Spoilers
Cotillard's character going from employee to employee is a playing out of Christ going through the stations of the cross before his crucifixion. Yes, there is an uncontrollable element of repitition to the basic saga, but she has to struggle through seeing everyone and asking them for the most uncomfortable thing. It's a brutal process of pain that allows her to find herself at the end. The Dardennes love religious symbolism in their stories and this is an easy one to identify. Weeding out details, each episode does play out a little differently. One may argue the details of difference are minimal and that's fine but I think the major process is slowly seeing Cotillard get more punished each time and how she comes to find the necessary courage at the end. The simple structure does allow it to be a true showcase performance for Cotillard and she definitely is amazing.
Trolling or genuine cinephilia gone out-of-control? I can rarely tell the difference.
Haha, then consider the Dardennes themselves to be trolls. When I was at the NY Film Festival screening of this with the Dardennes and Cotillard in attendance, the moderator introduced the thematic ideas I used here and the Dardennes fell very much into agreement and went on to discuss the themes further. Any paragraph explanation is a short sell and I wrote a longer piece on the film, but ehh, I probably shouldn't have bothered responding to such a weak reply anyways.
Well, nothing wrong with identifying or appreciating underlying themes. For example, I'm a strong proponent of the idea that Alien 3 is actually a retelling of Jeanne D'Arc. But looking at Alien 3 as such is just intellectualistic icing on the cake. You can enjoy the film for other reasons than that (and most people will).
In the case of this film, it's a shame if the apparent boringness can only be bypassed by reading some huge meaningful subtext into it (I mean, the crucifixion, no less, that's ridiculously awesome). Is the film worth watching at all if I don't make that pretty far-fetched connection (as most people won't, just like with the Jeanne D'Arc example above)? (And if, on top of that, I'm not a particular Cotillard fan?)
(By the way, don't take any of this too personally. I'm just easily reminded of the many film-/art-critics who are full of shit in their "analysis" of any work, and will read stuff into it that has the makers themselves scratch their head in confusion. It shouldn't come as a surprise that blowing a realist drama up to biblical proportions comes across as kind of funny and exaggerated, even if the makers confirm that it's legit (and as a matter of fact the Dardennes as persons always did seem to have a sense of humor... it's quite possible to be trolling and be dead-serious at the same time; look at someone like JL Godard)).
You haven't seen the movie, Tortuga? If you had, you'd see how relevant the reference to stations of the cross is. Then, it is a movie; it is not about resolving an equation where you need the reference. Of course.
About the repetitions: to me, they weren't repetitions: Cotillard is evolving through the days, and the people are simply not the same...even if some of their reactions can be similar. And I felt a perpetual sentiment of apprehension overtime she met a coworker.
Don't know what movie people who're calling it repetitive as a criticism have seen when it's screamingly obvious that what the minimal plot repitition is is a symphonic traversal through an entire spectrum of human behaviour.
Maybe Cottilard is too much of a distraction and all the Acting is blocking people's view.
Also,
Quote from: Tortuga on February 12, 2015, 10:13:41 AM
In the case of this film, it's a shame if the apparent boringness can only be bypassed by reading some huge meaningful subtext into it (I mean, the crucifixion, no less, that's ridiculously awesome). Is the film worth watching at all if I don't make that pretty far-fetched connection (as most people won't, just like with the Jeanne D'Arc example above)? (And if, on top of that, I'm not a particular Cotillard fan?)
Are
you trolling? You just put a bunch of words in his mouth to make it seem like he's saying the bland Jesus analogy is all there is to this ("apparently boring") movie.
they don't feel too repetitive to me - each character felt like a living breathing human being, which presented different challenges and perspectives for our main character.
QuoteQuote from: Tortuga on February 12, 2015, 10:13:41 AM
In the case of this film, it's a shame if the apparent boringness can only be bypassed by reading some huge meaningful subtext into it (I mean, the crucifixion, no less, that's ridiculously awesome). Is the film worth watching at all if I don't make that pretty far-fetched connection (as most people won't, just like with the Jeanne D'Arc example above)? (And if, on top of that, I'm not a particular Cotillard fan?)
Are you trolling? You just put a bunch of words in his mouth to make it seem like he's saying the bland Jesus analogy is all there is to this ("apparently boring") movie.
Note the "if" in that sentence. I don't doubt GT enjoyed the movie, I'm just questioning this particular justification for liking it (leading me to wonder if he and other people appreciated it for other reasons too, or if heavy intertext/subtext projection is the key to get into the Dardenne's work). Don't tell me you've never met a critic who's given interpretations of any particular film so outrageously profound and out there, that you've wondered "did I miss something or is this guy just full of shit?", here again, I emphasize "
wondered".
I'm just asking if the movie will be worth watching if I'm not by default willing to project big meanings onto something apparantly simple and repetitive (previous posts here lead me to believe that at least some people here experienced that repetition as unnecessary and thus boring).
Christ, I should have known I'd have to over-analyze and -define any word I write before posting. It's really offensive, it appears, to question someone's tastes in established higher art cinema, isn't it?I would like the Dardenne's films to click with me, because many people seem to appreciate them, but so far they haven't struck me as anything more than unimaginative misery porn; "life sure is tough being working class in Liege isn't it". I can easily read transcendent themes in stuff from Bresson or Kaurismaki. (Or from Chantal Akerman, if we're talking Belgian cinema. But with the Dardennes it somehow escaped me in everything I've seen so far (the features up until Silence De Lorna).
Anyway, Drenk's reply seems to clear things up more. Did I understand it right? Yeah, it's not an equation, it's a movie, that's precisely what I was asking. So there's no actual reference to the stations of the cross interpretation? It's all in the eye of the beholder? Ok. Just an analogy in story pathos that facilitates describing it, right?
[troll] cool, now I may be less bored when I'll see the movie [/troll]
[troll] but arguably the passion of J. christ is pure misery porn too, I guess. The original intellectsploitation! [/troll]
Quote from: pete on February 13, 2015, 02:26:50 AM
they don't feel too repetitive to me - each character felt like a living breathing human being, which presented different challenges and perspectives for our main character.
that's how i felt, too. some of the co-worker's reactions were the same with slight variances, but they each had a different effect on Cotillard. was refreshing when the soccer coach's reaction was to burst into tears of guilt, was also refreshing to break up the repetition of going from co-worker to co-worker with the two radio interludes in the car. the movie didn't blow me away like, say, Mommy, but it was solid stuff.
and claiming 'trolling" is totally uncalled for when GT is clearly stating an interpretation, dude.
Quote from: Tortuga on February 13, 2015, 08:42:17 AM
Note the "if" in that sentence. I don't doubt GT enjoyed the movie, I'm just questioning this particular justification for liking it (leading me to wonder if he and other people appreciated it for other reasons too, or if heavy intertext/subtext projection is the key to get into the Dardenne's work). Don't tell me you've never met a critic who's given interpretations of any particular film so outrageously profound and out there, that you've wondered "did I miss something or is this guy just full of shit?", here again, I emphasize "wondered".
First, you've never had a film grow on you? I've never had someone tell me an idea about a film I initially disliked and instantly said, "Wow, I was wrong." or anything but learning new interpretations about films can spur rethinking that can grow over time and later during 2nd and 3rd viewings, new feelings and thoughts can arise. It happens.
2nd, I'm guessing you're not really into analysis for purpose of finding meaning or interpretation. Apparently I had to be knocked off my socks on a personal level while watching the film. I indeed was and no, I didn't try to convey it. No point for me to do so. My gut reaction is just mine and isn't going to change how others felt about it on same level. Mod felt what he felt and so did Pete. However, interpretation is negotiable and can be relevant to be discussed amongst others. It's what I try to focus my writing more so on here. Just my personal interest.
Still, I only think you're seeing the surface of what I'm trying to convey. Crucifixion is a strong word and saying any average person in a film is Christ-like by implication is saying a lot. I'm not intending it exactly (Im guessing) the way you think I mean it. No, an ordinary character has no relevance to Christ in their demise being saving grace for believers or people everywhere. That isn't the point. Modernization of biblical allegory in film has been to adapt themes and ideas into modern context. Cotillard suffering through a stations of the cross scenario is an analogy for the persecution of labor rights in today's age. Christ was an innocent and wanted good for all. The Dardenne's have very specific social beliefs about average people today in job force and also dealing with poverty. It seems they likely believe middle class is shrinking and a greater good is coming to an end. In telling a story a story that has backdrop of bigger social problem, they found a simple personal story that is riveting and also challenges viewer to look beyond surface details of story (if they want to). Coming from a industrial background in Belgium where religious belief is still prominent (I think also personally for them), they probably thought both a good and interesting analogy to tell stories would be to subtext their stories to recognizable religious and spiritual stories.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on February 13, 2015, 02:48:15 PM
First, you've never had a film grow on you? I've never had someone tell me an idea about a film I initially disliked and instantly said, "Wow, I was wrong." or anything but learning new interpretations about films can spur rethinking that can grow over time and later during 2nd and 3rd viewings, new feelings and thoughts can arise. It happens.
Sure. Never argued that.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on February 13, 2015, 02:48:15 PM2nd, I'm guessing you're not really into analysis for purpose of finding meaning or interpretation. Apparently I had to be knocked off my socks on a personal level while watching the film. I indeed was and no, I didn't try to convey it. No point for me to do so. My gut reaction is just mine and isn't going to change how others felt about it on same level. Mod felt what he felt and so did Pete. However, interpretation is negotiable and can be relevant to be discussed amongst others. It's what I try to focus my writing more so on here. Just my personal interest.
Sure I am, as I've indicated with namedrops in previous post, directors whose works get new perspectives to me with every viewing. And the Alien 3 example. In fact the person "selling" me Alien 3 as a futuristic Jeanne D'Arc
was in fact playfully trolling, knowing very well that there are many chin-rubbing academics who would buy that theory instantly, suddenly praising it as a great piece of cinéma, while they previously wouldn't have thought of it as anything more than a popcorn sci-fi sequel. It was a joke, even if it was true. Anything can be read into any movie or work of art, if you really want to, especially something as metaphoric and universally spread as religious concepts.
So, is it so weird for me to at least consider you might have been trolling/jesting/fishing/whatever, in a similar fashion, when you shared that interpretation? I could see myself doing that. Since when is "troll" a clear-cut insult anyway?
Add to that
my personal opinion and interpretation of previous Dardenne movies; that they are simple (deliberately simple by the way, which I can appreciate) social-realistic stories about regular people in shitty situations. People and situations you could encounter in real life. I've never found any deeper narrative in there than that raw(-ish) reality. And why would I need to?
Even when hearing several opinions that agreed that Rosetta is supposedly a classical Greek Tragedy set in modern day Belgium, I only got disappointed when trying to rewatch it in that light. Still mostly boring.
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on February 13, 2015, 02:48:15 PMStill, I only think you're seeing the surface of what I'm trying to convey. Crucifixion is a strong word and saying any average person in a film is Christ-like by implication is saying a lot. I'm not intending it exactly (Im guessing) the way you think I mean it. No, an ordinary character has no relevance to Christ in their demise being saving grace for believers or people everywhere. That isn't the point. Modernization of biblical allegory in film has been to adapt themes and ideas into modern context. Cotillard suffering through a stations of the cross scenario is an analogy for the persecution of labor rights in today's age. Christ was an innocent and wanted good for all. The Dardenne's have very specific social beliefs about average people today in job force and also dealing with poverty. It seems they likely believe middle class is shrinking and a greater good is coming to an end. In telling a story a story that has backdrop of bigger social problem, they found a simple personal story that is riveting and also challenges viewer to look beyond surface details of story (if they want to). Coming from a industrial background in Belgium where religious belief is still prominent (I think also personally for them), they probably thought both a good and interesting analogy to tell stories would be to subtext their stories to recognizable religious and spiritual stories.
Ok. Thanks for elaborating...
(Solid line of thought except for religion being prominent in Belgium. Having lived in all language-districts of that small country and among several social classes (and Dardenne movies are still showing the less fucked-up regions of Belgian lower-middle class) I can safely say that, aside from traditional marriages and funerals, christianity is hardly present in anyone's life at all anymore. If the Dardenne brothers have at some point claimed that it's quite prominent, I can only guess they're being romantic. Or TROLLING. :yabbse-grin:
Alright I'll stop.
Quote from: Tortuga on February 13, 2015, 04:13:42 PM
Sure I am, as I've indicated with namedrops in previous post, directors whose works get new perspectives to me with every viewing. And the Alien 3 example. In fact the person "selling" me Alien 3 as a futuristic Jeanne D'Arc was in fact playfully trolling, knowing very well that there are many chin-rubbing academics who would buy that theory instantly, suddenly praising it as a great piece of cinéma, while they previously wouldn't have thought of it as anything more than a popcorn sci-fi sequel. It was a joke, even if it was true. Anything can be read into any movie or work of art, if you really want to, especially something as metaphoric and universally spread as religious concepts.
Alien 3 isn't an example. It's a dumb idea to really try to make anything out of that movie. It reminds me of when a film critic once said trying to make deep implication out of The Matrix was possible but it was equivalent to trying to make meaning out of the phone book. You can find cross related themes but the superficiality of the work destroys most ambition to be anything but a fun thrill ride. If you're using Alien 3 as a marker to put alongside Two Days, One Night for this kind of conversation, the discussion is over.
Yeah exactly, but I'm not comparing Alien3 with Deux Jours. Just using it as the same kind of example as your phone book reference. Many people would find elevating Alien3 to meaningful high art ridiculous and unnecessary (like you and I do), and I personally find raising a Dardenne film to meaningful high art ridiculous and unnecessary.
And that answers my original question: no troll, just cinephile taking his cinephilia too seriously. Thanks for finally clearing that up. Happy you agree that the discussion's over and I'm sorry I ever started it. Not because I didn't mean it, but because I didn't expect this to be SUCH a touchy subject.
aw you can't sit through a dardennes movie, good job!
Quote from: Tortuga on February 14, 2015, 08:19:04 AM
Many people would find elevating Alien3 to meaningful high art ridiculous and unnecessary (like you and I do), and I personally find raising a Dardenne film to meaningful high art ridiculous and unnecessary.
It's cute that it's 2015 and you still believe in "high art" as a concept and something to be elevated to and not just an outdated elitist construct used for centuries as an instrument of social control.
I don't like classifying art by high or low necessarily. Definitely think some movies try to be entertainment and in a lot of ways, good entertainment is harder to find. Still, like many, I do enjoy partaking in criticism and being objective, so I will continue to consider the themes of the films by the Dardenne brothers. If one think it's bullshit and elitist, fine, I don't care, but yea, it's definitely a moot argument to argue between two people who have different ideas about importance of such things.
Quote from: Tortuga on February 14, 2015, 08:19:04 AM
no troll, just cinephile taking his cinephilia too seriously.
interpreting a film that merits interpretation is taking cinephilia too seriously? really?
Hi guys relax can't you guys see that we have a Regular Joe in our crowd? He doesn't care for your film school mumbo jumbo. He's not an "artiste". Why can't we all give as little shit as this great man? He's got a fire to fight and then he's gonna meet his firemen buddies at the pub afterwards, let's not waste his time ok?
Quote from: pete on February 16, 2015, 01:26:53 PM
Hi guys relax can't you guys see that we have a Regular Joe in our crowd? He doesn't care for your film school mumbo jumbo. He's not an "artiste". Why can't we all give as little shit as this great man? He's got a fire to fight and then he's gonna meet his firemen buddies at the pub afterwards, let's not waste his time ok?
Which is a weirdly appropriate comment in a thread about filmmakers who openly and rigorously avoid all fluffy, poetic and stylized forms of artistry in order to portray the story of the firemen (well, solar-panel builders) of the world as sincerely as possible. :yabbse-wink:
EDIT: forgot to mention that I've seen the film in the meantime. I apologize for any fuss I've caused. It was quite unnecessary. The repetitiveness of the scenes itself didn't bother me at all. To me, that made sense for the story premise and characters. No more, no less. Regardless, I found the film mostly boring, with a few moments of greatness. Haters gonna hate, yes.
Criterion blu-ray (http://www.criterion.com/films/28720-two-days-one-night) on August 25, 2015