Monday, August 4, 2014

Frances Ha

I picked Frances Ha for three reasons.  First, after bad-on-accident and bad-on-purpose action movies, I very much needed what Phil described as a palate cleanser.  Second, this was one of the best-reviewed movies from 2013 and I'd been meaning to watch it for months.  Third, in looking over Best Actress candidates from our picked movies so far, in advance of year-end awards that we are obviously going to do, there were only four or five possibilities and one of them was Miranda July.  Ooph.  Got to add some more competition to the race, and Greta Gerwig is a great addition to a short list.

From director Noah Baumbach, Frances Ha is distinct from his previous movies, which based on the spreadsheet, no one else has seen.  In the three I'm familiar with (The Squid and the Whale, Greenberg, and Margot at the Wedding), they share a commonality of being about fundamentally unpleasant people wrecking their personal and professional lives with rampant assholery.  Frances Ha takes the opposite tack by having a protagonist I can immediately root for.  Frances's and Sophie's opening montage in New York does an excellent job of establishing the stakes of the movie.  This is a friendship that appears mutually beneficial, honest, and long-lasting, and therefore something valuable. 

Baumbach immediately puts it in jeopardy with Sophie's changing of apartments, and exposes the financial thread in the movie that I was a big fan of.  Sophie has a reliable job and is in a relationship with a finance douche, so she's set.  The two guys Frances moves in with come from rich families and can spend their time either sculpting and fucking and hat-wearing, or writing a script for Gremlins 3 that is 100% theoretical.  Frances is shown to be a modestly-talented dancer and out of her depth compared to Mischa Barton, ill-equipped to make a living at her chosen profession, and missing opportunities with her friends because she can't afford it.  Their shared proximity makes the disappointment that much more acute.  The easy wealth at the mid-movie dinner party throws this into the sharpest relief, as all anyone can talk about is what their money can do for them while Frances is only left with her narcissistic exposition about her friend group.  To be surrounded by money but have no access to it must be incredibly isolating and Baumbach ably communicated that to me here.

For a movie as short as this one, it packs in so much character detail about Frances.  Her messiness and the way she primps in every mirror she comes across says plenty already, but the fact that Gerwig actually eats on camera makes Frances immediately more human.  She pulls off a solid comedy fall, this happening after she struggles with the decision to accept the $3 ATM fee.  Following up cavity work with a big sundae, trying to subtly squeeze extra time out of squatting in Barton's apartment, it's all indicative of an immature person who hasn't reckoned with what she really wants out of life.  That I was always on her side, or at least sympathized with her meltdown, goes to Gerwig's performance.  She's a great presence throughout, when sloppy drunk or giddily running through the streets.  Her scenes in Paris were pathetically sad and her scenes in Sacramento were alive with the warmth of being back in the cocoon of your parents' home during the holidays, or whatever I assume that's like.

There's a theme running through the movie about the worth of sincerity that I enjoyed, based purely on how a movie like this could have gone.  Frances could have put in the work at the studio and become a great dancer, breaking into the A company and receiving a standing ovation with all her friends in the audience.  Instead, the movie acknowledges that that was never going to happen, and her talents laid elsewhere, behind the curtain.  In the intro, Frances reads an article out loud that is about how calling something sincere is basically equal to 'points for effort.'  You tried, and there's some value in trying, but without insight or talent, that value is miniscule.  This gets revisited, in the scene where Frances pats herself on the back after asking her boss for more teaching opportunities, and in Bowie's song Modern Love, which is about continuing on without any signs of progress.  Admirably, Frances Ha doesn't indulge the 'you can do anything' bullshit and admits that without parental patronage, people don't get to do anything they want.  Your effort might get you the next thing if you're willing to compromise, but it's not enough for the first thing.

On top of the performances and the writing, I loved how this movie looked.  The black and white was an interesting choice that I thought worked, and the blocking and lighting made every shot look like it could be a striking photograph.  Baumbach has a great eye, and his work with his cinematographer kept things continuously interesting. 


Overall, I'm a big fan.  This was like Girls with more likable characters.  There's even a few scenes that bear very close resemblances to some key Girls moments.  I know that's an unpopular show in this circle, but there's a place for movies like this between the frivolity of triangle-hunting and the existential questions found in arm piles.  It doesn't quite have the size or the depth to earn the full A, but I give this an A-, and earns a spot in my 2013 top 20.  Sorry, Captain Phillips, you're getting bumped.

44 comments:

  1. Before I get into the review, let me tell you story about my friends Brian and Shane (not Setnor).

    Brian and I went to grade school and high school together. We were best friends in grade school and remained good friends in high school despite winding up in different peer groups. Brian is a fantastic performer who starred in multiple plays and musicals during high school. He’s also hilarious and likable; I don’t know a single person with a bad thing to say about him. He went to college at IU and wound up moving to Brooklyn to pursue a music career. He has his own small record label now, and he plays in a band on the label. We don’t really talk much anymore, but I suppose he’s still doing well enough if he can afford to continue living in Brooklyn.

    Shane is a couple years younger than us. I’ve been really good friends with Shane’s brother Patrick since high school – we just had dinner together three days ago in fact. Shane is also a musician, mainly a drummer. He went to college at a small performing arts college in Chicago and wound up moving back home to southern Indiana. Shane is also in a band which started around a year after Brian started his label and band. Shane’s band seems to be doing fine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBcuf6H_V5c.

    Patrick went to NY for this year’s Big East Tournament, and Shane’s band happened to be playing a show at the Bowery Ballroom (which did sell out for what it’s worth). I asked Patrick about it, and he said they were great. He also mentioned one more interesting tidbit: the opener for Shane’s band? It was Brian’s band.

    I don’t know how many of us know those people from high school who wanted to make it and decided New York or LA was the place to do it. If you don’t make it quickly, you have to spend so much of your energy staying there you can’t get any better at the thing you went out there to do… Well, unless your parents underwrite a couple years of the experience so you can focus on your passion.

    I remember when I learned that Brian went to NY, I thought he was nuts but still really wanted him to make it because he was a good guy who “deserved” to be happy in life. Maybe he’s made it in a way similar to Frances has, learning that he was never going to be a huge star, but found something he loved and decided the rest didn’t really matter. That wound up being part the message I took away from Frances Ha – it doesn’t matter what you’re doing as long as you love it, and if you have a passion for whatever it is you’re striving toward, you can become a success in your own way.

    The other big takeaway I had from the movie is one many of us have probably learned at some point: only you can make yourself happy. Throughout the entirety of the movie, we see Frances float from person to person, relying on them to fulfill her in a way she did not think she could do for herself. It took Sophie really “abandoning” her once and for all for her to finally learn this lesson.

    My takeaway from the movie was not at all what I expected for the first 115 minutes of the movie. Up until then, it felt like a cautionary tale for anyone going to NY/LA for the wrong reasons. We end up seeing Frances essentially chewed up and spat out by the city, clearly not being good enough to make it as a dancer while everyone else was finding their own path in life. I can’t help but think this was my own bias coming into play here: like I said, I knew a handful of people who moved to NY, and pretty much all of them have wound up like Frances.

    ReplyDelete
  2. However, New York feels more to me to be a representation of her life with Sophie. I really enjoyed the Sacramento sequence in that we saw Frances’ happiness while there only to be followed up by her dread of returning to New York. Frances refused to admit that part of her life was over as she begrudgingly returned to the city she called “home.” I was hoping Noah Baumbach would follow this thread to its natural conclusion and actually have her become a success in Sacramento, thereby proving she didn’t need Sophie or New York to be happy. This is also why I shared Shane’s story: New York, to me, isn’t this magical place where your dreams can come true. Your dreams can come true anywhere. Again, perhaps my own bias is missing the mark on the interpretation… I guess that’s how I would have ended the movie if I were writing it.

    (Side note: New York is a fine city I’m sure, but 95% of the people I’ve met from there are their own special breed of asshole. Loud-mouth asshole. Hipster asshole. Better than you asshole. Choose your flavor, all end up shitty as shitty can be. I don’t want to dwell on this, but I felt it had to be brought up to color my interpretation of the movie.)

    Regardless of your interpretation of the plot, none of it works if you aren’t a fan of Frances. Frances is one of my favorite characters in a long time. Like Kissel mentioned, she’s feels very real and comes off very likeable. (It doesn’t hurt that she has some pretty funny one liners to boot.) I felt awful for her throughout the middle of the movie, really hoping she would succeed while expecting it to not happen. The low point for me was the message from her friend in Paris – I feel like that’s exactly what I would have done had I been in her situation, just quietly listening in a very annoyed “This is about right” sort of way. How much better does “Me And You And Everyone We Know” get if you swap out Miranda July for Greta Gerwig playing Frances? It would probably bump it up at least a full letter grade.

    Besides Frances, we also get a great look at just life in that New York hipster scene. All the characters feel real and well-realized. We get a nice cross-section of the culture, with the boys being the ones who can do as they please as long as dad’s money keeps in and Sophie as one of the few who has a real job. The added culture clash of Frances dining with Rachel’s group of sophisticated social “elite” was also fun to see – how could anyone want to be around people like that? (Again – assholes.)

    In the technical department, I thought the directing was well done. The shots of Frances when she is running looked great. (Side note: what restaurant takes cash, credit, and not debit? I sort of get why it was done for the sake of character development, but that was odd.) There was nothing over the top in the directing – it felt subtle and just right for a movie of this ilk. The black & white was nothing more than a stylistic choice; I was initially annoyed by it, but I quickly forgot about it.

    I also loved the writing. The conversations felt genuine and flowed nicely. I never once had a “wait, what?” moment while watching. The flow of the movie made enough logical sense in the context that it was a movie (even the Paris part; I know plenty of people who would do goofy crap like that, me being one them).

    Frances Ha is my favorite movie we’ve watched as a group since I joined. It proves that a movie can have a powerful message without being a despairing drudge. The story was good, the cast was great, and Frances is one of the best well-realized protagonists I have seen in quite a long time. I know my final grade is colored by my own personal stories and experiences, but I don’t care. It is what it is to me – one of my favorite movies in a long time. Thank you Kissel for the palate cleanser after Sharknado and Tomb Raider.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People from the New York/New Jersey area really do tend to be assholes. I'd say it's seriously 75%.

      And that not taking debit thing is annoying me now too. I didn't even question it.

      I think you raise a good point about the conversations. They did seem like actual conversations. Multiple times throughout the movie, I found myself thinking that these are actual conversations that I've had.

      Also, how does Sophie have a real job wearing glasses like that? I'd fire her last week.

      Delete
    2. I wonder how many of the conversations were actually scripted vs off-the-cuff. I'm betting mostly scripted, but I wouldn't be shocked if some of it was riffing.

      Great point on Sophie. You can get away with that crap in middle America, but not a cool city like New York.

      Delete
    3. The debit thing instantly bothered me... almost as much as not being able to find an ATM for how far within NY? That seems silly.. silly bad.

      Delete
    4. I'm sure Sophie wears her old-fashioned glasses ironically.

      Delete
  3. + Great takeaways that I’ll remember for a long time, and I didn’t even have to be depressed for it to happen!
    + Frances is one of my favorite characters in movie history now
    + Superb writing that felt like real life
    + Excellent look into the New York hipster scene
    - Some minor interactions and scenes that didn’t make sense, but they didn’t detract from the overall narrative

    Grade: A+

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let’s get this out of the way right away. I hate hipsters. Hipsters are inherently narcissistic people who carelessly fuck around affecting others in a negative way, but never realizing it. When a hipster takes the time to think about other people, they say shit like, “He wears a pre-faded baseball cap. What a douche.” This is galling considering this is a group that is against labels and promotes that individuals should be able to do what they want. Hipsters are so into themselves and their superior morality and understanding of the world that they ride fixie bikes on busy streets (always slowly because fixie) because the roads were built for everyone! (False, roads were built for cars and other vehicles that move quickly.) Hipsters are the type of people who panhandle because they want to live off of the kindness of strangers (help a poor traveler out!) while an actual impoverished person is just down the street. They’re like monks or priests who take a vow of poverty, but then don’t do anything positive or bother to grow spiritually. Hipsters probably love Uproxx.

    So, it’s kind of surprising that I actually think this is a goodish movie, though hardly not a great one. Frances is a selfish, non-committal hipster who is kind of hitting the end of delayed adolescence. I can relate as can many others in our generation. The idea of a quarter-life crisis is laughable to most generations older than ours, but it still remains a real thing. I look back at that time seeing it as awkward and mostly embarrassing because of the childish decisions I was making as a pseudo-adult. I had fun during those times, but I made some terrible decisions and non-decisions that affected other people in real ways. But the film loses me when it seems to celebrate those non-decisions and bad decisions and largely ignores any real consequences for Frances or the other characters. It seems to say, “Hey. You can live in Neverland and never grow up and that’s fine and when you do decide to grow up, you’ll have something there for you because you’re special.” Bleck.

    My gut feeling is to say that this film is a character study. The development of the character is more important than the plot. However, there really is no character development nor is there a real plot with any stakes. We just kind of float along for 70 minutes with nothing happening. Frances doesn’t have to make any decisions or face any consequences. She has no challenges. In the end, which is a happier ending than she deserves, she ends up right where she’d had been had she not made any of the dumb decisions along the way. (That there are people out there who think Frances (before she takes that job) is to be celebrated as unique, eccentric and fun bothers me. Hell, they probably think the ending is somehow sad or tragic rather than incredibly fortunate for that character.)

    So maybe it’s a drama/comedy? I don’t see the emotional stakes high enough for a drama. Again, nothing bad actually happens to Frances. Comedy? I didn’t find the film particularly funny. (The fall was pretty solid, though.) Mostly any laughs are at Frances’s misery and awkwardness. I don’t enjoy laughing at misery. Hell, I literally wanted to punch my TV screen when she was play-fighting with the other woman who was having none of it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For the nuts and bolts, I think we can all agree that Greta Gerwig did an excellent job. But I don't know what you guys found funny about her other than few one-liners. I spent most of the time fidgeting in my seat wishing she would shut the fuck up because she sounds like an idiot. If there was anything funny, it's laughing at her misery, and I can't get down with that. (I legit wanted to punch my TV screen when she kept trying to play-fight with that woman.) Films that can elicit a physical response from me have accomplished something very good or very bad, and I think her performance saves what would be an otherwise forgettable movie.

    The black and white film? I could take it or leave it. I don't know that it added anything other than less brightness so Geoff wouldn't wake up. It also didn't take anything away. Enjoyed some of the musical selections, though nothing game-changing there either.

    In the end, I can't help but compare it a film called "The Comedy" that stars a personal favorite in Tim Heidecker. It too was about an aging hipster ignoring maturity. However, that film doesn't prop up the hipster as someone to be liked. It shows hipsters for who they are, which is narcissistic, overgrown children carelessly fucking with the lives of those around them. Both films made me cringe uncomfortably, but I found The Comedy a bit more honest. Even though I like both films, I don't know if I'd ever want to watch them again.

    To Summarize:
    +Excellent job by Gerwig
    +Made me relate to a horrible person
    +Not as bad as Girls

    -Not much happened
    -Character was created to be celebrated but shouldn't be
    -No actual consequences for terrible decisions, no challenges actually faced, but somehow character learned something maybe?
    -Probably pretentiously in black and white
    -70 minutes of meandering followed by 10 minutes of a conclusion with no stakes

    B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shane, I feel like the review is fair, but this is why I said this movie does not work if you don't like Frances. Clearly, you did not, and I think this led to your perception of the lowered stakes. It's like watching the UE/USI basketball exhibition game as someone not from Evansville - they have no dog in the fight, so who gives a shit who wins this exhibition game?

      I felt like the majority of her horrible decisions were leading to a real "negative" change in her life b/c she was going to eventually be forced to become homeless or move back to Sacramento. Her decisions were not going to affect anyone else b/c no one else relied on her for anything more than companionship. She was absolutely living off the kindness of others.

      Does the movie ever celebrate any of her stupid decisions? I felt like she was sabotaging herself at every turn.

      Does the movie really celebrate hipster culture? It felt to me like the only people who could engage in it for the long haul were those who were essentially "faking it" by having a steady job or family money. Frances was the only likable character in the entire movie if you ask me.

      Delete
    2. She was probably the -most- likable character, maybe. Although I'm still not certain what was wrong with Sophie's fiance.

      And yes, the movie celebrates hipster culture because there are people who want to be Frances. She's funny! And spunky! And she does what she wants! She's a child and this movie doesn't expose that.

      Decisions like hers do affect other people, but we don't see it. She broke it off with a dude and lied to him instead of even thinking about making a decision. He asked her to move in and she doesn't care and then insults him on the way out. That hurts that dude and no one bothers to think about that. When she has to run to some ATM to get money, her table is the only one left in the restaurant, she made countless people wait on her because of this. We don't see that. We just laugh at her quirkiness. She inconveniences the person with the apartment in Paris. She annoys the woman by playfighting. She makes dumb conversation that no one wants to listen to. She's the person at the party that everyone wants to leave. She leaves ripples and doesn't care.

      So what negatives happened to her? She had to party with her parents? Her Paris trip was boring? She ends up with a couple of good jobs and a way to still be artistic? Am I missing something? What consequences did she face?

      Delete
    3. For one who is talking about low stakes.... Bringing up some of those affects is badly reaching; affecting someone and inconveniencing someone are different things. You have a point with her boyfriend though - I felt like it was implied the relationship had run its course anyway.

      What negatives happened to her? Well, she goes through the closest thing to a divorce a straight woman can have with another woman. She must deal with being completely broke in a city that isn't accommodating to broke. She gets fired from her "dream job" and essentially told she isn't good enough. Those AREN'T negatives?!

      Finally, anyone out there who wants to explicitly "be Frances" is a crazy person. She's borderline depressed by the third act. Now, if anyone out there wished they had her sense of drive and passion to succeed in their field of choice, I have no problem with that. We should all wish we had that. But Frances herself is a mess. She's both the protagonist and antagonist of the story, with her own inability to find fulfillment in her own abilities being much of the driving conflict in the story. Knocking the movie because some people want to be Frances is like knocking The Dark Knight b/c some people want to be Batman even though he's a crazy vigilante loner.

      Delete
    4. Her break up with her friend aren't because of any decision Frances makes. Her friends simply grew up and moved on independently of Frances.

      And she didn't get fired from her dream job. She never acquired her dream job. She had failed that long ago. I think part of what was obvious to the viewer but not Frances was that she was never going to acquire that job. Admirable that she tried and failed, but desperate and sad that she can't recognize that its over.

      She's broke in NYC. So what happens to her? She meets some other cool hipster guys and moves in with them. Then she goes to Paris and parties at home and whatnot.

      Maybe I'm using stakes wrong. What I meant is that there has to be something on the line and her decisions have to affect that. Her career and life is on the line. She makes awful decisions 70 minutes of the movie. Where does she end up? At the same damn job had she not made half of those decisions. The same job that was offered around minute 30 or something.

      Maybe those other negatives about her being a selfish asshole are pretty minor, but they're negatives that we rarely see and that are dismissed as mostly not existing. This woman just kinda ruins people's days and the audience is supposed to be amused. I find it annoying.

      I'm still not convinced about her drive and passion. What showed you that she was abnormally driven or even passionate? I didn't see the work outside of some occasional practice, which I assume is normal for people in the dance field. The passion? Does she really love dancing? Or is it just something she does? I don't know, but it seems like she just assumes it's all going to work out.

      The Dark Knight shows how horrible it is to be Batman at least. It's hard and you need elite ninja training and a bottomless bank account. Did it glorify Batman? Maybe, but at least Bruce Wayne earned it by being elite. And he did something. Frances is marginally talented (maybe) and does nothing. Just nothing. And people LOVE it because she's following her dreams. Great. I like playing softball. I'd love to do it for a living but because I'm not an idiot, I don't chase that dream. If someone made a movie about me chasing that dream, I'd hope it would show how dumb that is. Chasing your dream beyond the point of obvious failure just isn't admirable. It's just sad.

      Delete
    5. I'm less interested in a character's likability than whether or not they're recognizable people. Frances feels like a real person with all her flaws and blind spots and narcissism, so as long as she's not doing anything too outlandish for the world of the movie, I'm with her.

      I do think the movie agrees with Shane about hipsters. The two male roommates are the worst offenders, and though Baumbach writes them as nice guys, their lives are also completely frivolous and not their own. We get a glimpse of the writer's over-inflated sense of himself, and we never see the sculptor do anything productive at all. They are Frances, if she had money, and I don't think the movie is fully on her side until she actually produces something, unlike these two hipster douches.

      Delete
    6. On the issue of stakes, I don't think the movie ever meant to set them as Frances's safety or having a place to live. She always had returning to Sacramento as a failsafe. The stakes are maintaining her friendship, and adhering to this dream life she and Sophie have. Frances's lack of success is hindering her friendship, and her lack of talent is keeping her from success. So the solution is only to alter the dream, which is a serious step for anyone in their 20's. Some people get to live the life they pictured for themselves; most don't. Frances got to run it out longer than most, but that issue of compromising your plans is so central to this movie. People our age had childhoods immersed in 'You are special and can do anything' and it's always interesting to see things that don't buy into that.

      Delete
  6. This movie was a nice change from my first two reviews for this group.

    Three points stood out to me: Coming of age, Disillusionment and the loss of naiveté, Transcendence of and growth through friendship

    This movie is a classic coming of age story (ala stand by me, the breakfast club, etc.) updated and speaking to the new generation. In the first act the generation of prolonged adolescence is illustrated by the 27 year old Frances who still lives life much like she did in college. She may be a poster child for this generation struggling after graduating from college in a barren wasteland of unemployment, underemployment, and unfulfilled dreams. She is comfortable in the role she is in. She has lived this way for so long that she and Sophie describe their relationship as a marriage. She even breaks up with her boyfriend rather than upset the delicate balance of her juvenile lifestyle. She is forced to reflect on her own situation when Sophie moves to a new apartment at the beginning of the second act and Frances moves in with the hipsters with more money than talent. She realizes that her dreams of dancing in the main company are going nowhere. Her childlike interactions become even more apparent when confronted with her more successful and more mature peers at dinner. After being fired she attempts to recapture her youth in a last ditch effort by becoming an RA. At the end of the second act we see reconciliation between the two friends. By the third act Frances is completely disillusioned and her naiveté has been shrugged off and this allows her to explore avenues of pursuing her dreams she had not considered before. This to me is at the heart of Frances’ journey and growth throughout the movie.

    Driving much of this growth and the conflicts that ultimately give rise to it is the story of two dichotomous best friends. Although Sophie may act the part when living with free spirit and perpetual twenty something Frances she is not her. Sophie is moderate. She calculates what she believes she wants and does not take the same risks as Frances to get where she wants to go in life. She has a good job. It is partly the jealousy of the success of Sophie and partly mourning the loss of their intimate friendship that drives Frances through the first two acts. It is after the revelation that even Sophie with her exotic lifestyle, happy blog, and perfect moderacy (really wish that was a word) is unhappy and has become disillusioned herself that Frances is given license to let go and be free to pursue her dreams on modified terms and be ok with that. It is the transcendence of friendship that ultimately allows this personal growth between the two. Even though Sophie has been living in Japan and even though she is sloppy, shitfaced drunk when they reunite she can still count on Frances to hold her hair when she’s puking.

    We learn something about society today from this movie. It speaks to our particular time in America, and to millions to twenty something’s clinging to adolescence as long as possible. We can see ourselves in the characters and in this way reflect and grow with them. This is what the cinema is about. Not that this is my favorite movie or anything, far from it. But I want to express my love of movies through this review because it succeeds in transporting you into a time, place and person and in doing so can reveal truths which before you saw this movie were as hidden as the darkened theater prior to the film rolling.

    Stylistically black and white can sometimes feel hackneyed it worked in this film. It gave the film itself the feel of a college film at least to me reinforcing the adolescence of Frances. The soundtrack was good it both supported the film yet didn’t take you away from the intimacy of the scenes. The writing was not the strongest. There were no gripping diatribes, or monologues, no tete a tete on which to really reflect after the scene is over. The acting made up for this however and the performances carried what the writing lacked.
    Grade: between B+ and A-

    Jon that pratfall sucked…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Between B+ and A-" doesn't work well on the spreadsheet...

      Delete
    2. I dont need your damn rules... A-

      Delete
    3. "By the third act Frances is completely disillusioned and her naiveté has been shrugged off and this allows her to explore avenues of pursuing her dreams she had not considered before. This to me is at the heart of Frances’ journey and growth throughout the movie."

      The very things she ended up doing... were suggested and offered to her outright and she blatantly refused them. Sure, I get that she didn't give much time or consideration to them.. but she was clearly offended by the notion. What changed that? Where in the movie did she develop any realization that those were avenues she'd enjoy pursuing? I almost feel like I missed some scenes, because it felt like an instant jump from who she was for an entire movie to who she ended up being for the last 5 minutes.

      Delete
    4. I think the turning point is getting to a place where she can compromise on her dreams for herself. Accepting the secretary job means admitting to everyone in the company that she's failed. After her run-in with Sophie at the college, she learns that her friend's life is actually falling apart and she's miserable, contrary to her web presence. Frances previously thought everyone else's life was so perfect and wonderful, and she was failing by herself. Sophie reminds her that everyone fails, and that's fine, so she's able to give up trying to dance, take the secretary job, and compose her own program.

      Is that program actually good? The movie tells me it is, but I have no idea. This is where the movie might cheat by revealing that she had this secret talent all along, but I buy it because she's been teaching and she's been immersed in dance for years. I also buy the path she takes to get there, because this movie is very much about being honest with your talents. The male roommates don't have to be because their parents' money is blinding them. Frances has to confront it.

      Delete
    5. So... she realizes that her friend's life has fallen apart, after she's made the adult and responsible choices... and THAT makes her decide to be responsible and make the decision to work at something she had no desire to do before? "You didn't chase your dreams, and you ended up marrying a guy that is supposedly an asshole (even though we never see it), but your life is falling apart and you're not really happy. So, yeah, I shouldn't continue to chase my dreams either!" We've all seen people with average to decent talent (which we're lead to believe she had) succeed in their chosen profession.

      The movie does cheat... not only her secret talent (which if she is an average dancer, she'd do perfectly fine to dance in her own work, as there's no realistic way she's getting top notch dancers to perform in her early stuff, and be able to practice and enjoy her dream craft, all while succeeding in her choreography), but definitely her jump to maturation and realization of responsibility. Where was her struggle growing up... teetering between denial and acceptance, not all or nothing. I may have bought it more if such a large portion of the film wasn't dedicated to her not being able to make that instant switch.

      Delete
    6. Does Sophie really make the adult and responsible choices? She moved to Japan with a guy she had been dating for maybe a few months while she was in her 20's! Sorry, that doesn't strike me as "adult" or "responsible."

      As for her maturation... how long did you want this movie to be? Maybe we could have gotten there if we had a 150 min director's cut, but I think it is superfluous to the message of "only you can make yourself happy."

      Delete
    7. Are we given any clue to how long they were together? I got the feeling they were with each other for a while.. and Frances just never liked him. At that point they seemed to be in a very committed and financially secure relationship. If Sophie wasn't meant to be shown in contrast to Frances' irresponsibility, what was she?

      The movie was only 86 minutes... 90% of which told a very clear story of Frances' and who she was, and gave us little to no reason to believe anything was gonna change.. until it instantly did. Which means they could have lessened that % and changed course a little, or added 10 or 15 minutes to her story, and it wouldn't have been too long. A whee little hyperbole with your 150 minutes? lol

      Delete
    8. We aren't given any clue, but let's all agree it was under two years at least, right? No one should be moving b/c of a relationship when they are in their 20's, especially if they are on a path they like at that point. It's fine to do it if you have no direction, but Sophie had everything together from every indication. Sophie proves what Frances proves about relationships - you gotta make yourself happy first.

      I think needing that extra 10-15 minutes (fine, I HAD SOME HYPERBOLE) would have been a fine enough detante, but it would have been there for fluff. To go back to my Sharknado review, it could have been useful to fill in some logic gaps. Like Kissel, I thought all these gaps were filled in fine, but if you must see her become an "adult" to buy into the story, then it would have been nice to have it.

      Delete
  7. I'm just going to steal part of Shane's review that sums up my feelings pretty well...

    "For the nuts and bolts, I think we can all agree that Greta Gerwig did an excellent job. But I don't know what you guys found funny about her other than few one-liners. I spent most of the time fidgeting in my seat wishing she would shut the fuck up because she sounds like an idiot. If there was anything funny, it's laughing at her misery, and I can't get down with that. (I legit wanted to punch my TV screen when she kept trying to play-fight with that woman.) Films that can elicit a physical response from me have accomplished something very good or very bad, and I think her performance saves what would be an otherwise forgettable movie."

    Unlike you all, I thought the black and white was silly. I could have gone for some stark contrast between drab New York and beautiful Sacremento or Paris. There was one scene where they were showing houses in Sacremento, were they going for they're all the same or just filling time? If it was "all the same" it's impossible to tell in black and white because almost everything looks the same in black and white.

    Lily says she loved the hues.

    I'm thinking C- for a movie that makes me squirm but never laugh.

    P.S. I don't have any high school friends who "tried to make it" so I'm missing a personal connection that I've been trying to point out can save a movie for an individual reviewer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could have taken or left the B&W as well. Just to reiterate my thoughts:

      "The black & white was nothing more than a stylistic choice; I was initially annoyed by it, but I quickly forgot about it."

      Delete
  8. My initial thought was how Frances reminded me of myself when I left the girl's school in 2007 but before moving to Texas. I was completely broke and enduring the idiotic relationship game so I saw myself in Frances. Shane is right, though. She would be the person people would be happy to leave a party. She is obnoxious and Gerwig played it fantastically. There were times where I, like Bryan, wanted her to shut up.

    There were some funny parts in the film but the whole thing wasn't about her secondary or tertiary relationships. It's about her inability to accept the world and finding her place in it. When Sophie moves on, she didn't like, When she was let go of dancing, she didn't know what to do. She didn't know how to interact with Mischa Barton's character, which turned out to be awkward. Frances constantly felt the need to compete with the other characters instead of being herself. Perfect example was how she pulled the Paris trip out of her ass. That was completely random but she did it to show she can do things too.

    In all, Frances has a nice ending. She has the desk job and, as stated earlier, she does well in that behind the scenes role. She takes a new apartment but doesn't really come to grips on Sophie no longer being all to herself.

    For me, the movie was fine. I didn't particularly hate it or love it but it was much improved from its two predecessors.

    Grade: B-

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, I change my grade to a B+. I liked the movie more than Shane.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Something I forgot. If you're poor in New York, don't smoke!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'll say this... there is a good amount of reliability for me in the movie. I'm 99% sure that I'm the 'poorest' person in our movie club... and, perhaps, by no small margin. I've moved back home (albeit not due to finances like it would have been for Frances), and probably do more traveling and crashing on couches and spare beds than I should realistically afford.I know how it is to heavily rely on the kindness of others with little more to offer back than companionship or anecdotes that probably aren't as interesting to others as they are to me. In a way I get how Frances is living.

    I don't, however, have a strong opinion of her in either direction. She's grossly irresponsible and actually seems really stupid at times, but she has some charm to her as well. We'd probably have a decent time hanging out, but I wouldn't (and didn't) laugh at many of her one liners (in fact, i think the part i laughed at the most.. is when she found out Sophie is engaged, and that was because it was such a cliche 'hiding from the person until I have to respond to something I'm surprised by' moment). We'd share some of those anecdotes and I'd probably get annoyed with her at some point. You guys all know I like quirky, odd-ball people quite a bit, but Frances Halladay is just an average character for me, with no actual development...maybe I expected too much.

    Yes.. Gerwig was great. But, I felt like there were multiple moments that her facial expressions took me out of a scene, as they just didn't seem to fit what was going on. Most notably was at the dinner party. Perhaps it was supposed to happen that way with her getting drunk, but it was too much and didn't work for me. She was generally fantastic, though... as was the rest of the cast.

    I did like the black and white, so it was a small positive for me. I don't feel like it added much of anything to the movie... and it was apparently just an emulation of Woody Allen. I thought the general look of the film was well presented. The conversations and shot set ups were definite pluses. From a technical standpoint, I thought this was a really well made film.

    I'm with Shane, though, on a lot of things with the movie here...and as he admitted, his review makes it feel like far worse than a B movie for him. I never once felt like Frances' life, or at least level of comfort, was in jeopardy. I never even felt like it was a possibility that'd she have to move back to Sacramento to live with her parents or rely on them in any way. She tells us that her financial situation is grim, but what happens that ever makes us believe that? There was never a threat of her being homeless, hungry, etc. More was said about her money problems then we were even shown or given reason to believe.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Where was her development? It seemed quite the quick jump from Sophie driving away and her screaming down the road at her to becoming a responsible and financially steady adult. If it didn't happen when Sophie dumped her for a new roommate or when Sophie left for Japan, both bigger deals than her leaving after their happy dorm room moment, why would it happen then? How is that what makes her take the advice she so blatantly ignored from the person she REALLY admired? I get it, I don't take advice from 99% of the people that offer it... but I'm not buying the sudden turn around after 90% of the film told me otherwise. It was too tidy and convenient to just completely flip from only wanting to dance to being perfectly happy as long as her and Sophie can smile across the room at each other.

    As I watched, I couldn't help but think about Inside Llewyn Davis. I don't know if all of you have seen it, but I felt like it was a much better version of the 'starving artist in New York' story.

    I'm all for the 'do what you love' type of life and not settling for the traditional societal expectations. Going into this movie, I was really looking forward to watching it and ended up a bit disappointed. I feel like I should have more to say, I just have no desire to keep thinking about it at the moment. A part of me says I might like this if i watched it again sometime, but the rest of me tells me I'd be far better off watching Me and You and Everyone We Know or Inside Llewyn Davis again to get my fill of individuals with problems and those trying to do what they love and get by. I appreciated the acting, the directing and some of the realistic characters and dialogue that I could easily relate to, but some scenes really annoyed me (the play fighting, for example) and I couldn't get with the story or ending at all. My initial gut feeling is a C grade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the ending, I have no idea how much time has passed. It could easily be months.

      There's a key difference with Inside Llewyn Davis. Llewyn has talent where Frances does not. He's an asshole who made the right choice, but she's someone who chose incorrectly. One suggests talent isn't enough and the other suggests ambition isn't enough.

      Delete
    2. That's no excuse for us not seeing any development... it still made it seem instant. There should have been some sort of process, or at least show us some attempt to motivate herself or change her mind... not just jump to it.

      And yes, there are plenty of differences.. but their talent levels, for me, had little to do with how the quality of how their stories were presented to us.

      Delete
    3. The development was more in her relationships with other people, not necessarily her development into adulthood. Just because the development of her doesn't fit your mold of "development" as a person is not a reason to knock the movie as a whole. Like I said in my review, I didn't really like that she found her place in New York, but just b/c it didn't fit my paradigm doesn't mean the result was invalid.

      Like I said in response to a previous comment, the "coming-of-age" in question here is a bit of a misnomer. We really don't know if Frances has become an adult - she may still be just as shitty with money and just happens to have more of it now. Sophie driving off plus getting the boot from the dance company was that motivation to change her course.

      Delete
    4. It's absolutely reason to knock the movie as a whole... maybe not for you, but for me (and Shane, and probably others).


      If it wasn't about her development, why did it end with her being shown as independent.. her show, her apartment, her name. That's a big sign to me that it was ALL about her. Hell, the movie is titled after her.. not Frances and Friends, Ha!

      What in her relationships developed? She made up with her best friend for at least a moment... one scene of them smiling across the room doesn't tell me much, other than that they're on good terms for now. If Frances hasn't matured and taken a different look at adulthood, it's likely there will more issues between them... and if she has, then there is the instant development. Her finally interaction with anybody on screen is basically ignoring them (somebody she was really admired) as they talked to her...

      Delete
    5. She spent 70 minutes floating from person to person seeking fulfillment through them. The development was the realization that she could not be fulfilled through others. The relationships didn't develop - they devolved. So you are right, it is ALL about her, but it's about her being comfortable with herself and finding her own way as opposed to relying on others for some sense of identity. This is why I don't think this movie is about her maturation into adulthood. It's more about her maturation into self-actualization. Like I said, she could still be very shitty with "adult stuff" like money - I know plenty of people who are shitty with money but can get away with it b/c they make plenty of it.

      Delete
    6. So in the end, all we get is... she went from a shitty person without money to a probably shitty person with money, at least enough to get her own apartment in NY... but she's aware of that now, so it's all good?

      Delete
    7. To steal a line from myself....

      "Regardless of your interpretation of the plot, none of it works if you aren’t a fan of Frances."

      You are clearly not a fan of Frances, therefore it does not work. I don't know why I'm debating this in hindsight. How you hate Frances yet liked Miranda July is beyond my comprehension.

      Delete
    8. Now.. show me where i said I hate Francis...? I am very in the middle on her... no love, no hate... pretty indifferent.

      I was just saying 'shitty' as it seemed some people thinks she is.. but you were more referring to her ability to handle money.

      Then again, Shane didn't like Frances at all, and yet liked the film more more than me.

      Delete
    9. I took the "shitty" comment to be your feeling - your review reads much different. Indifferent is a fair word based on your review.

      I think we have different opinions on "development," and we're not going to convince each other one way or another. We'll probably need a facebook poll to determine who won this debate.

      Shane's grade does confuse me. His review didn't read like a B. Maybe he felt the way I felt about Holy Motors - I didn't enjoy the experience at all, but I'll at least appreciate the finished product.

      Delete
    10. Shane did bring up another good point though.. one that I'm curious about. Sophie's boyfriend/fiance/husband is supposedly a dick... somebody we are constantly told we shouldn't like. But the people telling us aren't very reliable and every time he's on camera, he seems pretty okay, no?

      Delete
    11. Absolutely agree. He does not fit into their world, therefore he should not be liked. It's sort of like Frances in the dinner scene - she wasn't part of that world, and she wasn't going to be accepted by it. Sophie did not have to move to Japan with him, and you cannot blame anyone for doing anything "selfish" with their career when they are not married nor have kids.

      Delete
  13. Late to the party so I'll be brief.

    -I felt like it was in black and white just so we didn't forget that it was a hipster arthouse quirky movie. Maybe Frances shouldve been the only one in black and white.
    -I thought Frances was annoying, whatever the opposite of self-aware is (self-unaware and unself-aware just doesn't seem like fake words)
    -Sophie's glasses may not have been entirely ironic- she was working for Random House, my assumption is book publishers look like that. (she was cute without them though)
    -I bet Tara Williams really loves this movie.
    -I didn't laugh once
    -The most interesting thing she said the whole movie was at the elite dinner party where she talked about the type of relationship she wanted to have and the connection she's always wanted. I thought when she left quickly thereafter she was having an epiphany of sorts but I was wrong. (btw they seemed nice enough to me, she was clearly out of place and they were trying to include her in the conversation she just kept rambling bullshit)
    -You know what her most unlikable moment in the whole movie is? How bout when Sophie is drunk at the dorm and talking about how her world is crumbling and the two of them discuss being besties again. Frances is thrilled that her best friend in the world is going through hell- quit job, alone in a foreign country with only her fiance who works alot, just had a miscarriage- Frances is excited that her friend gets to join her in loserdom so she won't be alone anymore.
    -I was ok with the leap forward in time, I'd say 9 months to a year- she has time to decide to grow up, crawl back and take the office job, become capable at that job, choreograph a routine and train dancers and rent a space, plus a reasonable amount of time for Sophie to return from Japan again and have gotten married. There's enough there for me I don't need the progression.
    -Gerwig was great, no supporters stood out as awful enough to ruin any scene.
    -The dialogue was natural
    -Wont watch again
    -I grade it generously a C+. I recognize there's good stuff going on in there but I personally didn't enjoy it. Based purely on enjoyment it would've been a D so they clearly did something right in the making.

    ReplyDelete