MovieChat Forums > Take This Waltz (2012) Discussion > devastating, wonderful, terrifying, mean...

devastating, wonderful, terrifying, meaningful film (spoilers?)

posted 11 years ago by emncaity
18 replies | jump to latest

Some of this repeats language from responses to other posters. Sorry for any repetition.

-- SPOILERS --

Some of the people on these boards are really, really missing the point of the film, I think. Far as I'm concerned, this film treats the whole question of marital fidelity-for-life and the roads not taken very seriously and unblinkingly.

It's sort of a horror film for married people, IMHO. You think about the chances for ending up like Lou, having given yourself over totally, having forsaken all others, and then...just too horrible to contemplate. It's real pain, unthinkably so, if you took it seriously to begin with. If anything, this film stands as a sober warning to people who are dipping their toes in deeper and deeper, and wondering what it would be like -- but not a didactic sort of warning. It's not pontificating. It's just a straight look at it in a way that really makes you take a very deep breath and think very hard. Not such a bad thing, in an era of throwaway films and postmodernist anti-meaning.

If people are reading this as some kind of "she cheated, and it was just fine" kind of film, boy, are they ever missing the point. I agree completely that Margot suffers for what she does. So does Lou. So does the "other man." So do the friends. So does her sort-of-ex niece. And on and on. In fact, the film is an examination of how easy it is to slide into cheating, just drifting into it, without any evil intent, almost wondering why you're doing what you're doing, wondering why you agreed to meet that person one more time. So you just dip one toe at a time, just getting a little intrigued and then finding yourself blowing up the place, and yourself with it, splattering everybody with various degrees of pain and loss.

IMHO, it was excruciating to watch, and incredibly valuable, also. It even leads to questions about marriage itself, what it is, what you mean when you take the vows. Like, do you really mean it when you say "forsaking all others"? Forever? Until you die? Most people, I think, don't even think about that very deeply. If you're going to do it and do it seriously, you forego all kinds of other paths, roads not taken. In a way, it's an acknowledgement of your own limitedness and your own mortality. It's a vision of the day of your own death, in a way, because this is the person you're saying you want there, and no other person (in that way). And then you have to stick to it. One and only one, until you pass from this world into whatever comes next, or into nothing. Makes you take a big breath even to think about it. That, to me, is exactly what the film is trying to do.

It's massively painful, and it's true. Real tragedy, like it happens in real life. A little niece who wonders why you're not around as much anymore, and who can't possibly understand the answer. It's the person you promised yourself to, like a stranger now. I had a lump in my throat through much of the film. It was just excruciating, if you take marriage seriously, and if you've ever pondered your own mortality vis-a-vis the idea of marriage, or even the reality of marriage. The most worthwhile, thoughtful, meaningful, devastating film I've seen in a long time.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

I think one of the more interesting aspects of people's reactions to this film was how they seemed to feel compelled to criticize her marriage with Lou; I saw talk of Lou's erectile dysfunction (Poor Lou. Why must Lou take this particular hit??), her dissatisfaction with Lou, her frustration about her employment, etc. Just not really true.

I agree completely. So smart.

To me, the film was not the safe and comfortable story about a good woman stuck in a bad marriage "forced" into the arms of another. (We feel okay about that sort of narrative, we want our heroine to be happy.) THIS film was all about the pull of desire. It was about how strong an attraction can be and how if you give into it even a little bit, it's nearly impossible to get out of. They call it magnetism for a reason.

I agree it is absolutely not about a bad marriage that compels poor helpless little her to fall into the arms of another guy (or two other guys, whatever). I'm not 100% sure it's about the pull of desire per se, at least not with regard to this other guy. I think it's unclear whether he just happens to be there at a time when she develops this vague dissatisfaction (which is what happens with so many affairs, of course), or whether she has a specific "can't do without this specific guy" kind of thing, or maybe a little of both. Or maybe she thinks it's the latter, when it's actually the former. (I'm thinking of that old cynical quote that "love is the illusion that one person differs from another" -- a really depressing idea, but I think true when it comes to some forms of what mass culture and/or selfishness calls "love." If you're in a marriage you've grown bored with, for instance, there's an awfully good chance that it doesn't matter a lot who the object of your "love" is. That is, I think one would always be wise to apply the most stringent self-critical ability to the question of whether, in a situation like that, you actually "love" that new person, or whether it really has to do with some kind of projection of newness, return to youth, sexual novelty, etc., as a cure for boredom, and whether what you're really doing is setting up your "love" life as a series of new-then-boring-then-outta-there cycles.) But I think your basic point -- a protest against the idea that the point of the film is to make us feel all happy about Margot "finding" something that was "missing," or whatever -- is exactly right.

As a woman, I was really interested in seeing a female director tackle this subject and not let Margot off the hook by making her a victim of some sad life. She was only a victim of her own libido and carelessness. That's fascinating to me. I am so impressed with Sarah Polley as a person and as a storyteller, I really do look forward to more from her.

I'd probably still make the point that it's at least a little more carelessness -- drifting into an affair, without really knowing why or thinking about where it's all going -- than libido per se. (There might also have been a bit of loving the idea of being worshiped by a different guy. As far as I can remember, the conversation with Daniel was all about what he would do to her, not vice versa.) But regardless, as far as being impressed with Polley's work, it really is something, alright. This was really a remarkable piece of work. Flawed in some ways (see the qualifying reply to my own initial post), but so absolutely true-to-life at its core and so significant in what it's trying to say that it really puts the run-of-the-mill time-wasting kind of film to absolute shame.

Another thing I love about a serious effort like this: It brings out the real thinkers, the articulate and reasonable people. Like yourself. ;-)

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

Also, just to follow up:

I agree with Roger Ebert (as so often happens) regarding a lot of the things that make you sort of wince regarding the plot. It's too coincidental that Margot and Daniel happen to be sitting on the plane together, after having met elsewhere. Too meet-cute that she claims to be disabled, and then gets caught out by him. Too ridiculous that he lives right across the street. Amazing! And, as Ebert points out, this seems to come from that part of movieworld where rickshaw drivers and guys who've been working on cookbooks for five years can afford to live in neighborhoods like this, just a block or two from trendy cafes and arthouses, in Toronto, or L.A., or Manhattan, without living about ten to a house. (On the other hand, maybe Polley was trying to make that part of the story a kind of empty parody, or rather a parody emphasizing the emptiness, of that kind of ridiculous narrative we used to see all the time in the '80s and early '90s, and still do sometimes. I hadn't thought about that until just now.)

However, I really do disagree with Ebert in his characterization of Lou as not "passionate" in some unusually unpassionate way. Lou is like about 98%, or maybe 100%, of all guys who've been married to even an attractive woman for a long time. The fire settles into a glow, and you really don't know what to do about that, or whether you even need to do anything about it. (Or do you? Mass culture tells you that if you don't have constant stimulation, constant reinforcement, a constant love-high, you'd better get on your horse and get moving, because there's definitely something wrong.) It's not "new" anymore, but you love her, and she loves you. Sometimes you're in the mood, sometimes you're not. There's not as much yanking the clothes off each other wherever you happen to be in the house anymore. It used to be all the time. Now it's once in a while, or never. But you can't imagine life without her, or him. Is there something wrong? Or is this just how it is? I think it's a real strength of the film that this is an open question. I absolutely do not think it's Lou's "fault" that Margot drifts toward somebody else (although Ebert doesn't say this, and really doesn't imply it either, but the "not a passionate man" comment assigns a certain amount of blame to him when we really don't know if that blame ought to go there).

Also, Ebert is wrong, I believe, in considering the idea of "sympathy" for Margot at all. I don't think this film is after that. I don't think it's trying to get you to like her or forgive her or anything else. It's just observing that this is exactly how so many affairs happen. Carelessness. Taking a commitment already made out of the locked box it was in, and re-examining it and rethinking it for no particular reason other than being bored, needing that "new" feeling again, whatever. (Those of you who actually paid attention to the conversation in the communal shower will remember what was said there on this point.)

Ebert says that Michelle Williams is just too cute, that her earnestness and adorableness elicits our sympathy, which he thinks is wrong for the point being made. He says that if Silverman had been cast as Margot, "we'd see Margot as the shameful woman she is." I understand his point, but I still think that's running toward the wrong result. Margot is human. What she does is as understandable as what David does with Bathsheba, or what your cousin did with that guy before she left her husband. She's not evil. She's riding on the tide of mass-culture self-indulgence, at least a little. ("If I don't feel excited, stimulated, and worshiped, there's something wrong, and I need to fix it. And I might be a little bit justified if, you know, something happened with somebody else. At least some of the audiences on talk shows would tell me 'you go, girl.'" And so on.) She's going to indulge herself at least enough to keep thinking she would meet Daniel one more time, just to see what happens. Stupid. Careless. And then it becomes tragically life-altering. The loss is incalculable. So is she going to end up with Daniel when she grows old and dies? Or maybe with nobody? Can you avoid growing old and dying by continually rotating your stock of lovers? Nope. You're going to grow old and die regardless. Who's it going to be with?

In that way, I think the film gets at how the prevailing sexual ethic actually results in tragic and incurable loneliness. Is Margot going to wish she had that one person who really knew her, who knew her all her life, who thought she was worth dedicating his life to, as his only one? (Are you going to wish for that, too?) How can what she gets from Daniel ever match that? Maybe more to the point, is she going to wish that she had dedicated her life to that one-and-only herself? What is she missing if she doesn't? What kind of life is she setting up for herself? These are all questions far beyond "sympathy" for a character, and they're much more like what happens in real-life instances of betrayal in marriage.

But if Margot tried to go back, of course it could never be the same again. Never. No way. What has she lost, by this kind of drifting?

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

The key to this film, I think, is what one of the old women says in the showers: "what's new gets old". People who misunderstand it in the way you describe are not paying enough attention, not only to that line but to what transpires in the sped-up montage that begins with lots of acrobatic sex and then later...not so much.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

Not to mention the fact that if the story is meant to be fairly true to life, you would figure that things with Lou had been some version of that (at least fresher and much more active) when they first started out. It's the expectation that there should be no tendency to fall off (which, as you may have read, I think is at least partly mass-media induced) that creates the feeling of something being "wrong" that needs "fixing," or dumping. Not that people shouldn't find ways to push back against the tendency. You shouldn't have to live in a near-sexless marriage unless both people are OK with it. But you also shouldn't think there's something drastically wrong with you and/or the other person if things drift toward that, or that it justifies a jump to another person.

Also culture-induced (and, I guess, human-nature-induced), I think: The tendency for courtships to proceed "successfully" to the extent that one partner (often the woman, but not always) feels worshiped. "I love the way he treats me" as the primary reason for the thing. "I love being wanted this much." Talk about a screaming red-flag trouble predictor. And the other partner is an enabler, for sure. Of course there isn't anything wrong -- in fact, there's everything right -- about cherishing the person you love and making her (or him) happy. But the need for a feeling of being worshiped is different, like a drug fix that goes dull over time and that demands a new and (you think) better drug. It hardly matters whether the other partner keeps doing it or not. Either the worshiper will start slacking off, or the worshiped will get tired of being worshiped by the same person. So she (or he) will be ready for another worshiper. There's a lot in this film that seems to run in that direction. The "tell me what you'll do to me" scene, for instance.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Hoo boy, the ol' "kids today!" lament. I do not believe there is any validity to your complaint about "this generation", and though I am GenX myself, I consider Millennials to be just the breath of fresh air our society has needed.

In any event, though, none of this generational talk has any bearing on the film. What is presented here could have happened to pretty much anyone born after WWII. And the only reason I even restrict it that much is because of a bunch of pernicious moral codes that were far worse in their effects in myriad ways.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Nice to meet you too. :)

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

Same here, although yet again, you could be describing me here. I'm starting to think I'm in some alternate universe or something.

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

You do wonder a bit about this generation of little ones at the center of their parents' worship, don't you?

YEEEEESSSSSS.

Ask my kids about it sometime. Nobody loves their kids more than we do, and nobody's prouder of them. And, for that matter, they're not only gorgeous but really, really accomplished. Every one of them. So if anybody could produce several more "little darling narcissistic princess" candidates, we could do it. But it ain't happening in this house, lemme tell ya. People think I'm awful for saying this, but contrary to popular opinion, I think there's actually an overabundance of self-esteem in the world. Way, way too much of it. I don't know if you've seen the "You can do ANYTHING!" SNL skit, but if not, I'll send you the URL. It's true that it's not easy to strike the right balance between letting your kids know how crazy you are about them and appreciating their real accomplishments, versus making them feel falsely "special" in a way that puts them in some permanent state above other people just because they breathe air. The "pedestal" thing. As in, "I love him because he puts me on a pedestal." Now I just want to throw up.

Yup, I'm convinced we've raised a generation of narcissists. Again, mass culture has a lot to do with that. It's profitable. Generation by generation, a race of narcissistic humans for whom no expense in the pursuit of perfection is too great. Talk about good for business. Even better when those humans carry around the knowledge that none of them really measure up to the false standard, so they walk around afraid of being discovered as frauds, as fundamentally and perpetually inadequate, which makes them inclined to respond instantly to marketing appeals that have anything to do with fixing whatever's wrong with them, particularly in terms of appearance or "lifestyle" (barf). The answer to that is not to adopt a false "self-esteem" thing, and to start acting like whatever is, is right -- nobody can "hate on me," even if I'm 400 pounds and close to death, even if I'm a slacking dopehead or chronic drain on society, even if I really haven't produced or become anything worthwhile or meritorious. The answer is a realistic view of self in relation to others.

Yeah, I'm just really keen about the selfies-and-Facebook generation. Although now, Facebook is just for us old people. Now it's selfies-and-Instagram-and-Vine, etc. Although I think Instagram is about three months from being "old" too. Twitter might as well be an archaeopteryx. They're all like clubs where, once anybody over 27 starts showing up, the place empties out of younger people.

Which brings us back to the point: Somebody raised like that, or mass-cultured like that, needs worship like she (or he) needs a drug. She'll get it from this person, and then -- because she's bored, or he's bored with giving it, or both -- she'll move on to the next. (Or reverse the genders if you like.) And so, you get worship and the feeling of perpetual renewal of youth. Like I said...an insane fantasy.

Your "World's Greatest Boyfriend" example is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As you say, other than his ability to worship you and make you feel so wanted and all, what is it you like about him? In 35 years, what will you still like about him? What will you talk about? What will you be genuinely interested in listening to? That's what people ought to be asking before marriage or whatever other lifetime commitment they're making.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Although now, Facebook is just for us old people. Now it's selfies-and-Instagram-and-Vine, etc. Although I think Instagram is about three months from being "old" too. Twitter might as well be an archaeopteryx. They're all like clubs where, once anybody over 27 starts showing up, the place empties out of younger people.

This part is sharply observed. Your mistake is thinking that it was ever any different with earlier generations. "Don't trust anyone over 30." "Hope I die before I get old." Remember those lines?

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

Sure do. I wonder if those people went ahead and died, or whether they found out that 37 or 45 were actually okay?

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

@#$%@^^^!!...I don't know what happened to the response I posted to this. Dammit. I'm going to look for it, and if I can't find it, I guess I'll just reconstruct when I have the time.

Short version: You are dead right. And the World's Greatest Boyfriend example is exactly on-point.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

It hardly matters whether the other partner keeps doing it or not. Either the worshiper will start slacking off, or the worshiped will get tired of being worshiped by the same person.

This is very wise! Well observed, I will have to remember that point.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] IL_Maestro 11 years ago

nicely written
I think even if it was bad marriage it doesn't make it any less bad than it was in the movie
if a woman is stuck in a bad marriage she can always ask for a divorce on her own without the need for a new guy
some just don't coz it is better than being alone anyway
they might only take an action when they find an alternative that doesn't leave them alone
or they can try to work it out, bad marriage differs from someone to another
but yet in this movie she was even worse, she had cyber sex with Daniel in the bar and jumped into his bed totally unexpectedly
after that she then tells her husband abt it, when she already made her decision
she never told him anything b4 that
abt the vows, I believe u gotta be mature enuff to take that decision to commit to one person
what happens is that marriage is something beautiful, it is needed to have kids and stable life and most of girls think it is the happy ending to their love like in movies, but actually it is just the beginning of another stage where u need to be prepared to make it work
they don't think of that and men too but mostly women as it is the dream of most of girls to get married and wear that white dress etc...
they just do it then start questioning their decisions, they find someone else and they go for it to leave their husbands
not saying they all do but I am talking those who do
for me I want someone as wise as me, knowing it would be so boring and I would want her to go away sometimes and I would want her to be quiet etc...
to evaluate all this and know what is gonna happen and how to deal with it
I don't want someone who might get attracted to someone else even without cheating or thinking of leaving, just the idea of looking somewhere else is ugly for me and it is as bad as cheating
and if she got bored she could tell me so we can work it out or tell me that she wants out, to get bored only and not coz there is someone else more interesting.

"It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!"

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

Yeah, I get most of what you're saying.

I think the biggest part of the problem is that people get into marriages, or even relationships at all, with no real idea of why they're actually there or what it's all supposed to be about, other than biding time and pleasing themselves.

[–] IL_Maestro 11 years ago

That is true, it is a decision mostly made coz it is the rite thing to do according to the society or to be like heroic lead characters who usually get married
the illusion of the white dress and throwing the flowers to another girl and the illusion of "shw said yes"
that makes a lot rush into it without knowing, without evaluating everything logically
they don't get that marriage is usually nice in the beginning but a job or a hot body or good looks wouldn't make it last forever or at least won't be nice forever.

"It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!"