"Away From Her" - new film by Sarah Polley

yeah i could have lived without the last 2 or 3 plot turns but whatev. still fun.

I liked the developments themselves, they just felt rushed. One of the few movies I've seen lately that could have really used a longer, rather than shorter, running time.

oh my goddd 'take this waltz' is so bad

"take this waltz, please"
About 13,200 results (0.31 seconds)

managed to be totally unbelievable, a little prurient, AND conservative in gross way.

There was a review of it in ... Slate, I want to say? Wherever, it got my attention, and even the poor reviews have been praising her eye. But I have friends who saw this on Netflix or something and had a viscerally negative reaction, yet were torn as to whether they didn't like it because it was bad or because it got under their skin. Probably a little of both, I imagine. Mostly sounds like the dude in this is just some smarmy douche who drives a rickshaw and makes balloon animals or some such whimsical shit.

there is a fair amount of whimsical shit, yes. mostly nobody seems like an adult and i couldn't tell if that was a choice or not.

permanent sadface

it's reeally bad, yah. some of the stuff they have coming out of michelle williams mouth, my god

i dont really read reviews but just @ a glance i was surprised that many were positive or at least mixed

ppl in their 30s who seem like adults are a diminishing resource

tell me about why it was so bad. i will never see this movie because it's way too emo but i like michelle williams and sarah polley. what went wrong?

possible answer: Seth Rogen is in it

oh god
really?

that's too bad. all i've seen of it is a still of michelle williams sitting on the kitchen floor looking sad. that was enough for an immediate veto, but if it's spectacularly bad, i kinda want to see it.

I didn't find it aggressively bad (like Cosmopolis—oy!), but so much navel-gazing "emerging adulthood" petty dramas of the privileged drivel. And the shower scene!

seth rogen is just the 'normal guy' in the movie, he's not the problem at all.

yeah this wasn't good. should've had more buggles. Rogen the straight man and did a good job. Silverman gets saddled with a lot of badness.

Hmmm, I've seen a smattering of (qualified) positive reviews and was looking forward to it.

It does look like something you'd dislike, though, LL.

hehehe you know me :)

I feel like I have a hard time being rational about movies like this, but apart from a few scenes that were a little too on-the-nose, I thought this was really really good. I particularly admired where Polley took the script in the final 20 minutes -- even if I would've made a different choice or two.

you're nuts!

jaymc can you give us more information?

About what? I don't know how much to spoil on a thread that's not specifically about this film.

I walked out of the theater last night and thought, I literally don't know how someone could find this "bad" on the whole. Maybe there are a few clunky "do you see"-type moments, maybe the script could've been shortened, maybe there are some character implausibilities -- but there are also so many scenes that are so audacious or beautifully shot or emotionally tense in a way that few films (that I see, at least) are.

But whatever. I guess I feel like if a movie makes me cry (as with Blue Valentine or All the Real Girls or Eternal Sunshine), then it's worth something, even if it's not perfect.

And it was Seth Rogen who did it!

Ok, got it.

You know I don't have the constitution to watch movies like that, but I appreciate that someone can. If I need them, they're there. Clarified!

From Polley (I don't think these are the objections of anyone in this thread, but I thought it was a sharp point nonetheless):

I guess what I find surprising are the assumptions people are making about what I intended as a filmmaker. So I feel like when people are really critical of Margot, there’s an underlying assumption that I thought this was a really great, flawless character, and they actually think she’s very selfish. When in fact I felt like she was selfish, too. I wrote her to be selfish and human and lovely and vulnerable and a total mess and really self-indulgent. Like, she’s supposed to be all of those things. We’re so used to, in film, having a protagonist that is essentially sympathetic, and we try not to rock the boat too much around our sympathies for our protagonists, so I think people have become very simplistic in the way they interpret a filmmaker’s intentions. I think in the days of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck characters, people accepted that you could have a protagonist that was a bit of a mess and a piece of work. And now if there’s anything flawed or unlikeable about your lead character, it’s assumed that you could not possibly have intended that, because it’s forbidden in mainstream film now.

See, she knows. She knows! I will see this eventually.

I hear there's mondo tits and pussies in this

i can't really talk more about this movie without SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER, so fair warning.

this was maybe the most cringe-y movie i've ever seen. nobody in the film seems to know english as a first language. i was put in mind of shyamalan exposition, frankly. the music cues are sub-anderson indie twinkly and the production design and costume was over-mannered and cutesy. it looked like a photoshoot. both of these people work at home in a tiny house (and he cooks!), the place would be a fucking wreck.

the movie is underpopulated. two of the main characters seem to have no family (esp. problematic when one character's family is a constant presence, and borderline overbearing), the second male lead has no friends or other human relations at all. none of the conflicts are plotted against a context of other adult commitments -- what time frame is any of this happening in?

i think the movie wanted a lot of credit for showing 'women as they are' (the scenes with older women at the Y), and it is certainly not afraid to show its main character as really childish and attention-starved. my viewing companion (female) liked it for showing the indecision and paralysis of a multi-year relationship where the partners' sense of long-term happiness is going out of sync.

i can't give it much credit for any of that because the conclusions are so brutally conservative: the scenario, stated plainly, is that a woman is married to a sweet, shlubby dude with a femme-y occupation who puts up with all her annoying bullshit. and so she dumps him for a cooler and hotter guy, whose 'soulfulness' is never not creepy (though idealized enough not to put the moves on her until after she leaves her husband, very nice). and in short order: sex montage! jay batman could have written this crap.

xp lawl yeah 'mondo' is one word for it i guess

as a schlubby husband lemme just say this trailer offended me

ok see now it sounds terrible again, and i STILL want to see it
it's a winning scenario either way

it may be a very real thing for women to want to bolt from their schlubs to run off with a manly pixie rickshaw driver but i'm gonna use my privilege to say FUCK THAT SHIT and damn this film straight to netflix instant. POW. go back to canadian horror movies and films about old folks sarah polley.

at least have it turn out the handsome dude has an std

so I think people have become very simplistic in the way they interpret a filmmaker’s intentions. I think in the days of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck characters, people accepted that you could have a protagonist that was a bit of a mess and a piece of work. And now if there’s anything flawed or unlikeable about your lead character, it’s assumed that you could not possibly have intended that, because it’s forbidden in mainstream film now.

uh "if you didn't like it, you didn't get it", not a good look S.P.

SPOILERS RE: GOOLE:

I don't know if it was conservative. Buggles/Fair Ride scene at the end suggested she was realising that she had to come to terms with happiness with herself/not rely on a dude or significant other to "fill the gaps"/etc

It just wasn't well done.

There are a number of scenes I really liked though...I even got pretty caught up in the reveal of the shower thing (her reaction is devastating). But too much try-hard, maybe.

(and he cooks!)

this is killing me for some reason

xp

this whole conversation is killing me

uh "if you didn't like it, you didn't get it", not a good look S.P.

She's way more charitable to her critics in the full interview:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/sarah-polley-take-this-waltz,82371/

Also, I don't understand the accusation of conservatism?

lol at the phrase "manly pixie rickshaw driver"

the music cues are sub-anderson indie twinkly

I had a problem with this at the beginning of the movie, but either it got better or I didn't notice it. Also, c'mon, of course Torontonians like this would be listening to Feist at parties.

and the production design and costume was over-mannered and cutesy. it looked like a photoshoot. both of these people work at home in a tiny house (and he cooks!), the place would be a fucking wreck.

Is the issue that you don't personally like the aesthetic, or that the aesthetic is implausible? "The place would be a fucking wreck" seems speculative. Seems like neither of them have full-time jobs out of the house, so maybe they have more time to clean.

the movie is underpopulated. two of the main characters seem to have no family (esp. problematic when one character's family is a constant presence, and borderline overbearing), the second male lead has no friends or other human relations at all.

The movie's principally about the relationship dynamics between three characters, so it didn't feel particularly underpopulated to me. Didn't bother me that Margot's family was unaccounted for -- maybe she doesn't have much of a family, maybe they don't live in the area, etc. The lack of any social context for Daniel is a fair point, but the film is seen almost entirely from Margot's perspective.

none of the conflicts are plotted against a context of other adult commitments -- what time frame is any of this happening in?

I think the majority of the action occurs over a couple of months in late summer 2010. (There's a reference in one scene to Margot and Daniel having known each other for five weeks.) I'm not sure what "other adult commitments" you'd want to see -- we see all of the characters working.

i can't give it much credit for any of that because the conclusions are so brutally conservative: the scenario, stated plainly, is that a woman is married to a sweet, shlubby dude with a femme-y occupation who puts up with all her annoying bullshit. and so she dumps him for a cooler and hotter guy, whose 'soulfulness' is never not creepy (though idealized enough not to put the moves on her until after she leaves her husband, very nice). and in short order: sex montage! jay batman could have written this crap.

Again, I don't understand what's conservative. Does the movie even have "conclusions" beyond just following its characters to the end of a story?

I agree that Margot can be annoying and needy; I agree that Daniel's "soulfulness" is creepy. I don't think the movie idealizes their relationship.

polley has a fair point re: stanwyck, davis etc and honestly the subject is great (that I'm like EEEEEEK just thinking about it is probably a good thing) but i'm pretty sure when those ladies played selfish folks the director didn't film them in adorable-vision and while I should reserve judgment until I see it for myself, the trailer did look cutesied up. If audiences think she's super-sympathetic to the unsympathetic lead that might be why.

that I'm like EEEEEEK just thinking about it is probably a good thing

Ha, my wife pointedly refused to see this with me b/c she was afraid it would affect her too much.

Thinking about it some more, I guess I do think there's some truth to the "manly pixie rickshaw driver" characterization. But isn't the movie in part about the conflict between the safe comfort of the familiar and the thrill of the new and unknown? Isn't what makes Daniel attractive to Margot precisely that she doesn't know much about him?

hot rickshaw action

My reactions were a mix of everything above. The I'm-Schmoopie-No-You're-Schmoopie stuff with Williams and Rogan was unbearable. The shower scene seemed pleased with itself; far from achieving a no-big-deal casualness, it clubbed you over the head--pay attention, this is a very big deal. I thought it was over 20 minutes before it actually was over. It tries for quite a bit--that's good. At times I thought "If I were a woman, I'd find this very moving"; it made me feel like I don't know anything about anything. The Buggles scene was nice--reminded me of Antoine on the Tilt-a-Wheel in The 400 Blows--and made a song I don't care about come alive. Michelle Williams is really good at crying. Sarah Silverman is as unnecessarily shrill here as she was in School of Rock.

Nitpicky geographical detail: there's no way you pass a Book City going from Queen and Dufferin to the Royal Theatre--not by rickshaw, not walking, not any way.

At times I thought "If I were a woman, I'd find this very moving"; it made me feel like I don't know anything about anything

This is really interesting to me!

And you know what, I agree with you about the shower scene but I'm essentially fine it. If you want to make your script a little leaden for a minute to make a political statement, more power to you.

I was thinking in particular of Daniel's long this-is-what-I'd-do monologue when they go for a drink. "That's how I should be talking? Rather than spouting opinions on Robert Altman films from 40 years ago? Jesus, I'm not even close."

how much she had to pay to use "Daydream Believer."

You once thought of [the men of the Mennonite community] as a white knight on a steed
Now you know how funky they can be

Yeah, I'm basically where clemenza is at with Women Talking: I'm happy for the bucketful of awards that Sarah Polley will get for this, even though it is my least favourite of her films by some distance (I haven't read the novel either). A few other observations:

* The film is visually drab to the point of being downright ugly. I'm sure there is some thematic reason for this--the look of the film is every bit as stifling as the world these characters inhabit, perhaps--but I cannot offhand recall a film that isn't a contemporary CGI-fuelled blockbuster that I hated looking at as much as this one.

* Despite having just watched I've Heard The Mermaids Sining, I didn't recognize Sheila McCarthy until the end credits alerted me to her presence (as I said to clem afterwards, I actually thought it was Patrica Clarkson at first). Now that I know, I'm glad she's still around and getting work--a sentiment echoed by another audience member who spoke during the Q&A.

* I will be interested to hear, as more people see the film, some takes on the trans character that, according to Polley, was something that she took some license with in adapting the novel. I'm hesitant to say more at this point, but I definitely Have Questions.

I have a screener sitting at home; it looks like the kind of film I will welcome as a tonic after Bones and All.

i saw Women Talking a few months ago at TIFF and i more or less agree with the above (though i was less annoyed by its drab visuals than the majority)

what i will say (that i also said at the time) is that a lot of the same people who took issue with the characters operating too much as talking points for the Discourse took no issue with the same approach being taken for How To Blow Up a Pipeline (which should be said is a better movie imo), idk if it's because HTBUAP is a bit more plot-driven and thus easier to excuse the approach or if it's because radical climate activism is a bit less well-trodden territory than sexual abuse

One guy in the audience, before asking his question, began by telling Polley how much he liked Take This Waltz. She answered the question, then added "And thank you for being a man who liked Take This Waltz." Simultaneously, crypto and I raised our hands from towards the back of the theatre: "We liked it too!"

(Scrolling back, my post on Take This Waltz doesn't really reflect that...I guess over time the one thing I loved, the amusement-park scene to the Buggles, is the one thing I still remember from the film.)

I'm sure she's more aware of the reception of the film than I am, but I never saw Take This Waltz as a battle-of-the-sexes story and I'm surprised anyone would have taken it on that level.

I was not a fan either.

really enjoyed women talking tbh. the look didn’t bother me at all, it honestly still managed to be beautiful even though it felt like there was no real color and every impression of color was like a glow off a shadow

Yeah I loved this, incl. the way it looks (though I'm generally fond of washed out greenery). Palette seemed like a response to the opening line about being "banished from the real." And that stargazing scene, amazing.

interesting to see it after the whale, another movie that’s functionally a single-location one-act play, bc it felt like there was far more filmic invention in the sudden flashes backwards and sideways in women talking. it was also not completely miserable

the scene where they reveal what year it is 1) rules 2) manages to not feel cheap or like a twist. it’s like watching modernity drive through a landscape it’s only touched by the edges

and yet the colony is just a microcosm of our own supposedly progressed society! anyway, loved this movie, like thinking about it, think the critics who accuse it of reeling off 2010s feminist twitter talking points need to log off

oooh really? Who's written that?

I saw it again a couple weeks ago. I still think it looks drab and has a genuine pacing problem but I admired it more.

oooh really? Who's written that?

― Malevolent Arugula (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, January 22, 2023 7:49 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://boxd.it/3tlRZD

The "Twitter in 2017" jab reveals the limits of that guy's experience with how women talk. There's something heightened about the dialogue, in keeping with the film's staginess, but it didn't feel untrue to their milieu. Women have been grappling with matters of consent and harm for millennia.