MovieChat Forums > Brooklyn (2015) Discussion > So incredibly rushed.

So incredibly rushed.

posted 9 years ago by lacunaincorporated
31 replies | jump to latest

I can't be the only one who feels this way, right?

Every "big" moment between Ellis and Tony felt so rushed and left me nothing to chew on. I know this is 1952 but even still, I feel like we barely got to see them at all. I left the theater feeling like I didn't even KNOW their relationship. I saw two people in love, and i knew they were in love. But I didn't feel like I knew HOW they fell in love or WHY. It just didn't work as a romance for me.

And then, the second half is even WORSE. I mean, Ellis, you've been on what, 4 "dates" with Jim and all of a sudden you're conflicted about Tony? Is that all it took back then? Christ.

[–] thaumielx72 9 years ago

A movie telling the story of Years of a persons life within one and a half to two hours is going to have to "move things along."

You’ve never seen a movie before?

(I think the idea is to "put yourself in their shoes" and make a decision - sometimes within seconds and not years...)

Oskars problem with Eli is not her ambiguous gender, but her ambiguous humanity.

[–] lacunaincorporated 9 years ago

Oviously they're not going to make a movie that's months long, I get that, but there are a lot of movies that have more fleshed out relationships than Brooklyn does and it's supposed to be the foundation of this movie. This year alone, in the same amount of time Me and Earl and The Dying Girl built a more fleshed out (albeit platonic) relationship where each character actually felt like an individual. Whereas in Brooklyn, the relationship feels as standard as it could possibly get. Hell, if I get an urge to watch a period piece romance, I'm gonna reach for The Notebook faster than I'd reach for Brooklyn.

I'm not TRYING to drag the movie down, I just wanna better understand WHY soooooo many people love it when I thought it was as basic as it gets (though with a slightly neat ending and good performances.)

[–] LctnSct 9 years ago

I would reach for Brooklyn a thousand times before I would reach for the Notebook. I have absolutely no qualms about the time spent on Eilis & Tony's relationship - what I saw of it, I felt it. I got it. The truth is 99% of a person's daily life is not worthy of a story to someone else. What was show was all I needed to be shown. Keep in mind there was an entirely different relationship that needed to be shown on the other side of the Atlantic, too.

[–] jhenson-29069 9 years ago

You're correct. There wasn't much time to really build and feel the relationship of Eilis and Tony....because the film isn't about that. The film is about home. The marriage is more so a metaphor for laying down roots. Now that they've married, she has two homes. But which is TRULY home? NY or Ire? The writers can't put that much meat into the story line of Eilis and Tony because then you will only root for her to go back to Brooklyn. You won't be able to feel that unsure feeling of what home you belong to. As a viewer, you're now able to understand her conundrum. Where is home? Which would you choose? This isn't a love story about man and woman. It's a love story about home.

[–] marvelass 9 years ago

A movie telling the story of Years of a persons life within one and a half to two hours is going to have to "move things along."

The movie took place in less than a year. She She arrived in Brooklyn in late 1951, gets through the winter, meets Tony and begins dating him, goes back to Ireland in the summer after her sister's death, and at the end returns to America after her friend's funeral in August.

The problem was that the movie was rather short, just an hour and forty-five minutes. If it had been stretched to two hours or just over, it would've been better for the film. A year of a person's life is not that much. It's not like they were telling her life story or even a few years of her life.

.

[–] kenpo1980 9 years ago

Well, I see what you're saying but everyone was very young and this was taking place in the early fifties. This wasn't like today where there are all kinds of options for the working class and everyone went to college. This was a time where you finished high school, got a job, got married and had kids. If you met someone who you thought was the one you married them you didn't spend years dating and then living together.

[–] GMonhey 9 years ago

The only parts I felt rushed were towards the end with the shakey cam. I was thinking to myself, "great way to ruin a poignant moment, get a *beep* tripod or put the damn thing on a table". Fortunately, they got the very last scene right WITHOUT shakey cam.

Do I have to give it to you?

[–] Sergeant343 9 years ago

The scene was more Cinéma vérité, which is different from shakey-cam; similar yes, but each has their stylistic purpose in film. I really cannot understand why people call anything that is shot on handheld "shakey-cam", it is quite disingenuous to the craft of filmmaking.

HI-F___ING-YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
Films 2015: www.imdb.com/list/ls073224289/

[–] GMonhey 9 years ago

Call it shaky cam because the camera is literally shaking and it becomes noticeable, and in some cases unbearable, when you're watching it on a big screen. There maybe moments when it's appropriate, but I felt it looked inconsistent with the rest of the movie which for the most part has us looking directly at the characters without any movement from the camera. Made it difficult for me to keep that attention.

Do I have to give it to you?

[–] GMonhey 9 years ago

As for your spoiler, what she got was that he was a gentleman, got along with one another, and was interested in starting a family with her. What made it difficult was her sister dying, leaving her mom alone with no one to care her, and add the fact that she would've been offered the accounting job like she always wanted. Couldn't blame her for having second thoughts. besides, Tony sort of rushed her into marriage because he was afraid of losing her.

Also, it was set in the 50s. Times have changed.

Do I have to give it to you?

[–] mshollyt 9 years ago

Rushed!? I thought it was incredibly slow.

[–] Mettsemmel 9 years ago

I mean, Ellis, you've been on what, 4 "dates" with Jim and all of a sudden you're conflicted about Tony? Is that all it took back then? Christ.

It has nothing to do with "back then". It's pretty common nowadays as well to get confused about one's own feelings in the blink of an eye.

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

It has nothing to do with "back then". It's pretty common nowadays as well to get confused about one's own feelings in the blink of an eye.
______________
Exactly. People are people and what they felt 60yrs ago, they still have the same basic feelings, desires and ambitions. Had Eilis not given in to Tony's insecurities and committed to him, she would have felt freer to make her choices upon her return to Ireland. She returned transformed and suddenly had opportunities presented to her that she didn't have before she left. She was stylish and empowered, and you could say that the town also needed her to help them transform. That is the beauty of the tale, in which the conflict of feelings, can create confusion and knowing what the best thing to do is. She could well have chosen to go back to NY and Tony, just on her own terms.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

[–] itsadammatt 9 years ago

totally agree - the first half was great but the film lost me when she went back to ireland- character building went out the window for a plot twist that was so rushed it was hard to be invested in it, then the pay off of her going back to new york was completely throwaway

[–] universalend 9 years ago

There are a few things that should be considered here.

1. It's 1952, and the culture is meet man, fall in love, shoot out babies. This is a deeply rooted aspect of American, Irish, and Italian culture at the time. When you consider the socialization from parents, family, friends, clergy, educators, employers and everyone else promoting marriage and children it would be natural to rush into love, relationships and union. In fact they made it pretty obvious during the proposal scene that it was all rushed and that she was a bit apprehensive about it.

2. It's not beyond imagination that a naive girl arriving to America, basically alone, missing home would have the disposition to allow herself to fall in love quickly and easily.

3. She is fairly young and inexperienced which would also lead one to believe she would be more prone to falling in love quickly.

As for the second half, I was trying to empathize with her decision to spend as much time as she was with Jim and it wasn't easy to get there, but again... she is young, inexperienced, and in mourning. It's not outside the realm of belief that she was caught up in being home, spending time with her mother and grieving for her sister that she sort of leaned on Jim for comfort.

She only knew one man her entire life and they weren't together all that long. I guess none of it seems like that much of a stretch to me.

I will admit some aspects of the film did feel rushed, but I think that is more a product of the story, edits, multiple settings and the timeline. This could have easily been a 2.5 or 3 hour film without becoming tedious for me.

[–] JohnnyAfropuff 9 years ago

I think it's also important to remember that she never said (or even hinted at it) that she was in love with Jim, and he never said he loved her. It's the difference between how she lived her life in American and in Ireland. Despite falling in love so quickly with Tony, it was love. They said the words to each other and shared their feelings. There was passion. In Ireland, it's expected that if you're both single with some opportunity (a fine job like Eilis, a fine place to live like Jim) then you get married, because that's just what you do. That's how everything was in Ireland: you let things happen to you, and you went with them, feelings be damned. I think it's ultimately why Eilis chose to go back to Brooklyn, because she had the freedom to truly live, to make things happen. She could live on her own, meet someone that wasn't chosen for her as Jim was, go to school, support herself, and fall in love.

So in that respect, I really think she ever loved Tony. And while their marriage may have happened quickly, as you and others have said, that was commonplace for the time period. And it worked out, because she realized how right her relationship and new life in Brooklyn were for her.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 9 years ago

I think it's ultimately why Eilis chose to go back to Brooklyn, because she had the freedom to truly live, to make things happen. She could live on her own, meet someone that wasn't chosen for her as Jim was, go to school, support herself, and fall in love.

Maybe. I love the film, but I'm not really sure about her reasons for going back to New York. I wonder if the old lady hadn't interfered and tried to blackmail her about her marriage in Brooklyn whether she would have gone back. I'd like to think she would have eventually, but that's the thing, you don't really know. She didn't seem to have made any decision until that time when she realized this was how the town would always be like. But it didn't seem like her love for Tony took her back, rather her desire to leave the town again. I was a bit disappointed with that. But I guess in every relationship there's always one person who loves their partner more.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried