Margot at the Wedding

email this story
read comments (38)
post a comment

I mentioned two days ago what a nervy, exacting and well-sculpted film Margot at the Wedding (Paramount Vantage, 11.16) is, and that Noah Baumbach's direction and writing, at the very least, deserve respect for having produced the gnarliest ensemble piece of the 21st Century.

I was taken, in other words, by the boldness in making a film about a family reunion that is so startlingly cold and strange and unconcerned with audience engagement.

There's plenty of time to get into this down the road, but I saw Margot at the Toronto Film Festival, and I don't want to imply a derisive or dismissive attitude by being silent. I didn't "like" it very much, but at no point did I feel I was watching a meltdown or a car wreck. It's a very well condensed, carefully layered study of some very screwed-up people. It just doesn't care to tell a story that provides "answers" or any sort of parting of the clouds, or what most of us would consider a sufficient number of laughs.

If for no other reason, Margot is worth grappling with because of Baumbach's one master stroke, which was to have the the film embody or emulate the deranged self-absorption of the characters.

The principal nutters are played by Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jack Black, but every character in the film (except for Kidman's androgynous son, whose name escapes, and her ex-husband, played by John Turturro) would have been thrown into Bedlam if they'd lived in London of the mid 1800s.

As we soon discover in this warped family get-together piece, nobody gives a damn about anything except for the fickle meditations swirling around in their heads, and Baumbach doesn't give a damn about anything either (certainly not the reactions likely to be shared by average viewers).

What is the most hateful, go-away quality that anyone can possess aside from being a serial killer or having lethal gas or halitosis issues or lacking the ability to control your bowels? Manic self-obsession, or the inability to pay the slightest attention to the thoughts, feelings and needs of others.

This is the affliction that permeates Margot at the Wedding. Some have said it cripples it, but I disagree. Baumbach's commitment to this mental-emotional state in his characters is so rapt and uncompromised that it's almost thrilling. "Almost," I say. You certainly can't say Margot at the Wedding isn't hard-core.

Imagine a modern Chekhov play peopled by an assortment of Hannibal Lecters without the cannibalism, the wit and the lacerating insights.

Margot's/Baumbach's only two flaws are (a) not dealing satisfactorily with those ghastly pig-butchering neighbors who live on the other side of the fence in a ramshackle house, and (b) being cavalier about the cutting down of a large family tree that borders the two properties.

Trees are holy, sacred things -- especially big ones -- and should only be cut down if safety absolutely requires it. The pig-butchers want it taken down because of a root problem in their yard, but this is never really disputed (not vigorously) or explored, and before you know it Black is cutting a pie into the main trunk with a chain saw, and he doesn't know how. For a tree-lover like myself it was like watching him suffocate a family dog or cat with a pillow.

I used to be a tree surgeon, and there's a way to take a tree down. You climb up to the top, tie in, and drop down to the lowest level of leaders or branches and start sawing them off, one by one, as you work your way up. The idea is to create a branch-less totem pole, which you then drop onto the "bed" you've made of leaders and branches. In the film Black just drops the whole thing on top of a wedding tent -- an act that temporarily symbolizes an end to his forthcoming wedding to Leigh.

I'll re-examine this film four or five weeks from now. It's partly infuriating, but it's never uninteresting. I'd like to see it again and think it through some more.

McGrath, Zlotnick & "Into The Wild"<< previous | next >>Fergusion disputes

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 16, 2007 at 5:28 AM

comment #1

EDouglas says ...

I think you'll be alone on this one, Jeffrey... Paramount Classics just cancelled their NY Film Festival press screening on Tuesday, I'm sure because they're worried about more bad reviews coming out early. (I still haven't written mine, but Margot was easily the worst movie and biggest disappointment at TIFF for me.)

Posted by EDouglas at September 16, 2007 5:41 AM

comment #2

houmas says ...

Funny. I've read loads of Margot reviews post-Toronto, and the vast majority of them seem to really like the film, or at least respect it. For a supposedly "divisive" film, I'm surprised at the actual the lack of pans (though they do exist). And I've been paying attention. Peter Travers, Anne Thompson, Ty Burr, Stephen Whitty, Steven Rea (Philidelphia Inquirer) have all come out in favor of the film. And I've read about a dozen blog reviews (MSN, E!, A.V Club, Popmatters ect) that rave the film and the performances.

I think Margot will probably do around 70% on RT. It'll have it's haters, but reviews so far suggest that Jeff isn't going to be eating crow on this one.

Posted by houmas at September 16, 2007 6:20 AM

comment #3

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Houmas: You consider my piece a pan? It's not. It just describes the effect it has had (and will have) on others, along with an admission that I didn't exactly "like" it. But what's "like"? And what does "like" amount to in the greater scheme? "Like" is not the be-all, end-all. "Respect" has to be the foundation, and then you build from there.

Posted by gruver1 at September 16, 2007 6:39 AM

comment #4

IClavdivs says ...

Houmas, same here. I've read about 20 reviews (key critics with their reviews out already and bloggers as well) and only a quarter are solely negative, another quarter are "respect" or "admiration" reviews like Jeff's where they are not fans of the movie but give props to Baumbach. Others praise the performances while saying the movie falls short and the rest simply say the movie is great all round.

MATW is going to screen at NYFF anyway so I don't see how reviews can be avoided. As long as Baumbach made thee movie he wanted to make then that's super.

Posted by IClavdivs at September 16, 2007 7:06 AM

comment #5

EDouglas says ...

ED to Wells: I think houmas was responding to my comment.

Maybe the critics who hate the movie (and I've talked to at least 6 who saw it in Toronto) are being courteous about holding their reviews or waiting to see it again in a better setting. Honestly, I can't even respect the movie... I had a problem with the production values in Squid and the Whale (or lack thereof) but was able to get over them on second viewing... using the same methods a second time, especially in this Hamptons setting, just didn't work. If Baumbach wanted to make an ugly movie, he succeeded.

Posted by EDouglas at September 16, 2007 7:09 AM

comment #6

buckzollo says ...

I am sure many filmmakers would like the silver-lining you are painting on this gray, depressing cloud. Baumbach should get hazed more for this 'misfire' and move forward bloodied but better.

Posted by buckzollo at September 16, 2007 7:13 AM

comment #7

houmas says ...

Jeff; My post was in response to ED. I realise your review wasn't a pan. I was actually sort of defending your postion, by stating that I've seen lots of critics come out in favor of the film.

"Apparently Noah Baumbach was influenced by Eric Rohmer much like Chris Rock was...but at least Rock's movie was funny and entertaining."

Yeah because Eric Rohmer's films are uproariously funny. And we all know that "funny and entertaining" is the essence of all great art. But seriously, just because you've seen European art films, doesn't mean you understood them. If you were able to find value in the Dardenne brothers' 2 Palme d'or winning films (Rosetta, L'Enfant) or La Promesse/The Son, you should be able to find similar value in Margot at the Wedding. I'm not saying it's as good, but they're coming from a similar place as far as style and their approach to engaging with an audience is concerned. Like the Dardennes, Baumbach believes that spoon-feeding the audience is insulting and unnecessary. Evidently, he may be wrong.

Posted by JD at September 16, 2007 9:52 AM

comment #18

houmas says ...

Another major critic, Michael Philips of the Chicago Tribune has just come out batting for Margot. Philips describes the movie as a grimly hilarious cross between Chekov and Cassevetes. So I'd say he's a fan.

Posted by houmas at September 16, 2007 10:00 AM

comment #19

EDouglas says ...

Yeah, I think the pretentious critics who praise movies just because they won a Palme D'Or--L'Enfant was okay but highly overrated IMO--will probably love Margot. Comparing it to Chekov and Cassevetes is typical "See I'm a sophisticated critic because I name-check playwrights and respected indie filmmakers" behavior. "The Sisters", which practically nobody saw, was a much better attempt at doing Chekov than this. And this is from someone who probably likes and tolerates Jack Black more than the average critic, too.

Posted by EDouglas at September 16, 2007 10:23 AM

comment #20

nyscreenwriter says ...

it's highly unlikely this movie will make more than $2M. Without any heat from Toronto, this is not a word of mouth picture that will maintain a 10K screen average after the 2nd week to sustain any business outside of NY & LA.

Posted by nyscreenwriter at September 16, 2007 10:44 AM

comment #21

JD says ...

Are you trying to argue that your failure to comprehend/tolerate complex, challenging films somehow makes you a more insightful critic ED because, in my experience, critics who profess to be bigger Jack Black fans than most rarely wow anyone with their keen insight. And The Sisters is an actual Chekhov adaptation... so it makes sense that it's closer to Chekhov than a film that has nothing to do with him. Similarly, Pride and Prejudice was much closer to Jane Austen than Match Point, but does that mean it's better?

And I'm not sure why discussions of this film's merit always deteriorate into box office predictions, as if quality and commercial success were somehow related. In any case, I see no real reason why this film couldn't be as successful as, say, The Hours, a far less appealing Scott Rudin/Nicole Kidman production that still managed to be a hit worldwide. Kidman certainly gives a much better performance here.

Posted by JD at September 16, 2007 11:03 AM

comment #22

erniesouchak says ...

Wells used to be a tree surgeon?? Now I've heard everything!

Posted by erniesouchak at September 16, 2007 11:15 AM

comment #23

christian says ...

"I used to be a tree surgeon, and there's a way to take a tree down."

arguably the most single fascinating sentence jeff has ever posted.

Posted by christian at September 16, 2007 12:02 PM

comment #24

EDouglas says ...

JD, I understand complex films just fine, thank you... but I don't understand or comprehend filmmakers' desire to bore the moviegoer with pretentious, random, self-referential crap, which is by far more the norm these days with filmmakers who find a little bit of critical success. (And that goes just as much for Woody Allen's latest, which tries to recapture the "magic" of Matchpoint.) So much of "Margot" is Baumbach trying to do more of the same and failing miserably...there's nothing complex about it.

And yes, I knew that The Sisters was based on Chekov and that's my point... if you're going to do Chekov, do Chekov, don't do some boring dark dysfunctional family comedy and when it fails to get laughs or any sort of emotional reaction, say that you were trying to achieve someething higher that only critics will understand. FUCK. THAT.

Posted by EDouglas at September 16, 2007 12:18 PM

comment #25

T. S. Idiot says ...

I am one of the minority who hated Squid and Whale in part because of what Wells calls "manic self obsession." The trailer for Margot promises much more of the same. Yet maic self obsession is the favorite disease of the 21st century.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at September 16, 2007 12:36 PM

comment #26

dawgzilla67 says ...

ED, I'm reminded of an earlier thread discussing Terence Malick that folks that dismiss films with words like "pretentious" and "boring" are usually just trying not to admit that the filmmaker was operating on a level that may be beyond their understanding at the time. I'm not saying you have to like the movie, but your comments reminded me of that.

I'm interested in the movie because of the weird four star and one star reactions it seems to engender. That usually signifies that the filmmaker is really trying something different. As often as critics seem to cry out for something different, it seems that what they really want is just a new twist on the familiar.

I don't think Baumbach is trying to cover his ass by bringing up literary influences -- he actually seems to be one of the few directors out there who seems as influenced by authors as he is filmmakers. "That ain't no damn crime," to quote Mr. Iggy Pop.

Now, I may hate the movie (as I did when I saw another film that seems to be getting wildly divergent reviews, Across The Universe) but at least I'm pretty sure I won't feel like I just sat through two hours of formula.

Posted by dawgzilla67 at September 16, 2007 1:03 PM

comment #27

malibugigolo says ...

I could see Noah remake DECOY, which just came out on DVD in the 4th volume of the Warners Noir collection. Neat movie. What a way to spend a weekend.

Posted by malibugigolo at September 16, 2007 4:56 PM

comment #28

buckzollo says ...

JD you are a punk, I intentionally kept my first post benign. Thanks for confirming my intuition about you, this sentence you posted is so revealing:
"I know bitter, mean-spirited people who lash out because of problems they have with themselves (not other people) and I recognized their tendencies in these characters." I think what you are so arrogantly trying to jam some of our more plebian (as you must think) throats is that you have empathy (not sympathy) for these sick and twisted characters (i.e. they remind you of you) and your admiration upon discovering a movie so much about you and your crappy existence is such that you are willing to overlook and over compensate (read: argue) any flaws despite how glaring or subtle.

Posted by buckzollo at September 16, 2007 6:04 PM

comment #29

swhitty says ...

Well, obviously I think the movie was just fine, as Houmas points out way up above. (Didn't like the look, but I blame DP Harris Savides for that, who I've thought was inexplicably overrated since the days of "Elephant.") Didn't like as much as "Squid and the Whale," but still thought it painfully honest and smart -- the dialogue works in layers throughout, with characters never responding to what was said, but what they heard, just like real life. And the film was the only one I saw at Toronto that actually made me laugh out loud -- outside of "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" that is.

Posted by swhitty at September 16, 2007 6:26 PM

comment #30

JD says ...

You couldn't be more right, buckzollo. Similarly, I've always admired Jaws because of my time spent hunting giant sharks. As a disgruntled female novelist with a son and a troubled marriage, I have to say that virtually every moment in Margot at the Wedding rang true for me.

What really baffles me is that you think the characters are "sick and twisted." What are the unbearably awful things these charaters do? Argue? Have affairs? 98% of movies show characters doing far more sick and twisted things: killing, raping, bombing, etc. But nobody talks about how sick and twisted those characters are. Is it possible that people like buckzollo lose their shit when they see Margot at the Wedding because they fear complex, independent-minded women who reject the roles society has prescribed for them? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say yes.

Posted by JD at September 16, 2007 7:14 PM

comment #31

Drew says ...

I think the use of the word "pretentious" is pretentious.

It's a non-starter in any serious conversation about film. Learn to express yourself without that word, Ed. It doesn't really mean anything. Some of the best films ever made are "pretentious," which simply means they tried to say something. They tried to be more than just a piece of entertainment to waste two hours watching.

One of the reasons I detest that word is because it seems ridiculous to punish a filmmaker for ambition, even when they fail. God, I wish we had more ambitious filmmaker, and instead, it seems like critics sometimes rush to shit on anyone who tries to push the medium or who struggles to break free of narrative convention or who dares to make a film about characters who don't conform to standard ideas of likability.

I haven't seen MARGOT yet, but I'm certainly curious after all this back-and-forth about it.

Posted by Drew at September 16, 2007 7:25 PM

comment #32

buckzollo says ...

JD what a pearl of wisdom this is:
"In a sense, this is just a case of superficial American audience expectations clashing with a more sophisticated, European sensibility."
Who do believe has seen this film thus far besides critics, festival-goers, cinephiles, and the hollywood elite? As far as I can see you are characterizing, as your blanket generalizations tend to do here, all critics and audiences as superficial for having voted in whatever measure "NO THANKS" . You are such a flip-flopper. One post you dismiss potential box office, in another you try and argue it to suit your point. What about are the characters, are they sick and twisted or aren't they? Oh they are...but I fear them. Got it.
P.S. Weird how you would also want to watch a movie like this after a typical day, I mean, as you.

Posted by buckzollo at September 16, 2007 7:57 PM

comment #33

EDouglas says ...

I know perfectly well what the word "pretentious" means, Drew, and it was the word I meant to use as an adjective for "critics" above. It wasn't used in reference (at least by me) to any filmmaker being discussed in this thread.

It's a word that according to my dictionary means "expressive of affected, unwarranted or exaggerated importance, worth or stature" so it is exactly the word I meant to use.

"Pretentious" = arguing about a movie you haven't seen and

"Pretentious" = arguing for a substandard movie by a filmmaker you like/love merely because you like/love him.

Now do you want to look up "condescending", Mr. Dictionary?

Posted by EDouglas at September 16, 2007 8:47 PM

comment #34

JD says ...

Thanks for the inocherent ad hominem attacks, buckzollo. Very persuasive. The quote you cite is in reference to the small group of people who have seen Margot at the Wedding and attacked it on bizarro grounds... such as, it's not sufficiently entertaining/amusing (ie. you). As someone else pointed out above, most of the reviews have been positive. And to add to Drew's pont, people who call other people flip-floppers do it out of an inability to grasp nuance in an argument. Whereas I'm perfectly happy watching a movie about flawed characters, your knee-jerk response is to dismiss them as "sick and twisted" (because you're wildly superior to them, apparently). There is a difference and, when a filmmaker goes out of his way to make a compassionate film with characters whose actions are clearly motivated, it's a bit childish to dismiss them in such a naive, jock-on-geek fashion.

As somene who just saw dozens of movies at the Toronto Film Festival, let me clarify a few misconceptions: 1) many of the people who see movies at TIFF are (at best) casual filmgoers with a weakness for Hollywood pandering and 2) for every smart, perceptive critic, there's an uninformed hack who has a friend with a website. I've read some intelligent criticism of Margot at the Wedding, but it generally rises above the level of "I was bored" and "the characters are assholes." If you grasped what Baumbach was going for, I'd encourage you to pick holes in his movie but, as far as I can tell, you're grandest hope for Margot was sitcom-level hijinks. You want the exact opposite of what Baumbach is offering: escapism.

Posted by JD at September 16, 2007 8:55 PM

comment #35

Drew says ...

Well, I'm not arguing about the movie. I haven't seen it, and didn't offer any opinion about it at all. And if you think I'm arguing for Baumbach out of some loyalty, you're off-base. I'm not a big fan of SQUID & THE WHALE. I just think the word "pretentious" is a bullshit word people use when they can't articulate the reaction they had to a film. Especially when they use it over and over as if it's a descriptive term.

Posted by Drew at September 17, 2007 2:01 AM

comment #36

jesse says ...

What I really get out of this thread is wanting to know what Ed meant by having problems with "production values" of Squid and the Whale. How is an intimate movie about an upper-middle-class family living in Brooklyn supposed to look? I'm not sure if you mean the movie's low budget (though it's not the type of movie you think about budget while watching since there's no reason to expect it to look differently than it does) or the actual camera techniques, which are a little more noticable than in Baumbach's previous films -- handheld camera, dimmer lighting, etc. -- but, again, pretty much par for the course in a small movie, and put together unobtrusively... even skillfully, I would say.

I know you said you got past them on a second viewing, but I still think that's a strange reaction.

I haven't seen Margot, but I am a huge fan of Baumbach -- including Mr. Jealousy and the barely-seen, absolutely hilarious Highball, and Kicking & Screaming is one of my favorite movies ever. So it's fair to say I'm anticipating this one pretty wildly despite the more muted reactions. I would like to see Baumbach do something more overtly comedic -- not "sitcom hijinx," as someone said above, but something as loose and funny as Highball, which has minute after minute of flat-out amazing dialogue. I really think he's one of the best writers in U.S. films right now. I did appreciate the more stinging aspects of Squid and the Whale and expect the same from Margot, but I hope Baumbach doesn't turn his back on how funny he is, and instead alternates a bit, Woody Allen style (even though Woody gets similarly alternating crap criticisms -- "why isn't he making comedies anymore?!" and then when he makes a slight, light comedy, "why isn't he making Match Point?" and then when he does another movie like Match Point, "why is he rehashing Match Point??").

Posted by jesse at September 17, 2007 7:08 AM

comment #37

JD says ...

Good points, jesse. As a few others have noted, Margot at the Wedding is the Interiors to Squid's Manhattan or Annie Hall. But it's not as deadly serious. I actually like Interiors quite a bit, but it felt like Woody Allen was trying to be someone else (namely, Ingmar Bergman). Margot is easily Baumbach's most serious film to date, but his signature wit is still very much in evidence.

Posted by JD at September 17, 2007 7:31 AM

comment #38