"Away From Her" - new film by Sarah Polley

It's real good; no aesthetic breakthroughs, but not much Lifetime-style sap. There are just the right amount of laughs, esp involving a resident at the Alzheimer's home who's a former hockey announcer...

And yes, the film's really about the husband (Gordon Pinsent), tho Julie deserves whatever tin award action she gets. Olympia Dukakis and Michael Murphy also underplay nicely.

DVD release on, er, 9-11.

Released tomorrow.

It's ok, a few overdone shots (given with first time actor-turned-directors) but sweet.

There's this one pullback of Olympia Dukakis while she drinks and we hear her phone message that was tooooo much.

i think the phonecall script is a one on one adpatation from the original Munro story

a few overdone shots (given with first time actor-turned-directors)

or, in Rob Reiner's 20th film.

That line about Iraq... oy. But otherwise a lot better than I expected.

I liked that line, which Armond White had a fit about.

Saw again, solid. And not a star vehicle.

Blogger speculation is that the recent news stories about Sandra Day O'Connor's husband -- afflicted w/ Alzheimers, has formed an attachment similar to the Christie-Murphy one -- will boost JC's award hopes. Rather unappetizing.

Saw it again too – Olympia Dukakis' award-bait mannerisms the only sour note.

Since there is no Sarah Polley thread, I had to put this somewhere -- "Splice" was ridiculous, but I can't help it. I loved it. That had everything to do with Sarah Polley and NOTHING to do with
1) monster that looked like Billy Corgan
2) appalling scenes involving this monster
3) Adrien Brody

Sarah Polley makes awesome monster movies! No Such Thing was really good too.

I also love Sarah Polley's teeth.

I want to see this. Trailer was kinda lame and yet I still want to.

It's been getting decent reviews! I want to see it, too.

I loved it! There are things I would change if I could (Adrien Brody, for instance) but Sarah Polley is a class act and elevates whatever she touches imo.

I thought it was a lot of fun, despite the dicey plot turns.

Also, fantastic (and relatively low-budget) f/x.

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."

Oh haha I grew up on AOL in the 90s so.

Baby talk def hard to take, but how much did I love that she put that on screen?

away from her was a horrible farce (almost typed "away we go," an even more horrific film), and this new one looks like an antrocity.

sp. on "antrocity" -- though that would make a great drive-in movie ca. 1957.

I inadvertently referred to it the other day as Away with Her.

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.

Sarah Polley, I apologize; I've been told by a friend that there was indeed a Book City on Queen, just west of Bathurst, for a short while a year or two ago.

i can't really say any of the complaints about this are off the mark. there is plenty of insufferable myopia and bullshit. but i actually think it took the "madam bovary" template too an interesting, sort of unexpected, place for me. perhaps a lost opportunity.

her family doc is a good story, pretty interestingly put together

using an old film thread for filmmaker's subsequent work = super lazy

don't blame me!

ain't

*slams fist on desk*

hey morbs if i wasn't super lazy i wouldn't be on ilx to begin with

point taken.

with TTW, i was convinced that the titular sequence with the revolving camera was a fantasy and was kinda shocked when it turned out to be real. it even seemed to keep with the emphasis on fantasy to that point in the movie.

So I really liked Take This Waltz despite an extremely rocky opening which, with its "afraid of connections" and having Williams take part in the mock-public flogging of an adulterer, showed Polley's insecurity with her material (her first non-adaptation/documentary?) in a "do you think they'll get it?" way. Luke Kirby struck me as unbearably creepy at first, and yeah, he could have used even a hint of backstory, but the scenes between Williams and Rogen (!!) were magnificent--having recently watched Leo McCarey's Make Way For Tomorrow, I mean it as the highest compliment that they had two or three scenes together that were as devastating as any in last half hour of that film. For her occasional clunkiness as a writer, though, Polley's an extremely skilled and observational filmmaker; a montage late in the film is brilliant in its economy (note how much is said in a moment where Kirby's character exits a bathroom). Not even close to perfect, but I'm honestly surprised at all the hate this film got, both here and other places.

I talked with two friends about Stories We Tell, which I hadn't seen till last week.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEWQGz60bag

Crypto's post above make me want to take another look at Take the Waltz, which I definitely didn't hate.

Take This Waltz I found very moving, despite the awkwardnesses that people have underlined above. I picture Michelle Williams staring into the stove for eternity, always dissatisfied.
Stories We Tell was not bad, but I didn't see why this story particularly needed to be told. It's an anecdote made into a movie.

I kinda felt the same way tbh

i think i preferred stories we tell to take this waltz. i definitely started stories we tell, having known nothing about it, feeling like, what is this story? does this merit a documentary? but i felt like it kept me engaged and that i enjoyed it and that it merited the run time

Nice to meet ILX'or cryptosicko tonight; we saw Polley's new film, Women Talking, with Polley there for a Q&A afterwards. I think we were basically in agreement about the film: impressed that she got it made, hope that it does well and wins awards, but thought it was a rather careful (and for me sometimes deadening) checking off of certain boxes meant for this moment, right-thinking every step of the way. The audience questions in the Q&A were consistently good. (I held back from ruining the gravity of everything by asking how much she had to pay to use "Daydream Believer.")

(To put it another way: Armond White, if he ends up writing about the film, will go off on it noisily and gleefully, and even though I wish Sarah Polley well, I'll know what he means.)

Curious how much of that critique could be leveled at the novel it's based on?

I haven't read it, but it sounds like her adaptation was pretty faithful, although they changed the novel's narrator about three months into editing.

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.

About to watch Take This Waltz.

I found it quite affecting at the time, though I wonder how I'd feel now. I take it you're watching because of the This Had Oscar Buzz episode?

Yup! Coincidentally, though, I saw it on my library branch's shelf last week and had forgotten she'd directed it.

A muddle. Why is this film almost hours long? Polley's script consists of cutting between scenes showing Rogen and Williams' domestic bliss and mopey-faced Williams teasing poor Kirby. Rinse, repeat. These scenes generate no tension, in part because Williams, one of our best actresses, is such a drip. Why do both men love her? She cries all the damn time!

It has moments of intimacy that few male American directors would bother staging, though, and Kirby and Rogen are hot enough that I wish the movie was about their hot bromance.

*almost two hours long

lol magick rickshaw dream boi

he is

Why do both men love her? She cries all the damn time!

It's a Toronto thing