Two Lovers (James Gray, 2008)

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this last night and was absolutely floored. The first thing that struck me was Joaquin Phoenix's performance - easily his best to date - where he inhabits the role of an emotionally shattered man, awkwardly trying to put his pain behind me. Leonard is by turns outgoing and withdrawn, confident and dismissive and Phoenix's vulnerability here is palpable. But what hasn't been mentioned is how utterly fantastic Isabella Rossellini is as his mother, Ruth. Her lines are few, but her presence, and particularly what she does with little more than her face in a couple of keys scenes is astonishing. My girlfriend used the words "riveting" and "bowled over" in describing her work --- even a couple hours after the film, she was still talking about it.

As for James Gray, he is in such command of the camera here I was left shaking my head several times in amazement. There is a great shot early on, when Vinessa Shaw's character of Sandra admits that she had wanted to meet Leonard after first seeing him at the dry cleaner. Until then, we've seen Sandra only in conversational closeups, but after her confession, Gray puts Sandra in a medium shot, sitting in the middle of a couch letting the audience and Leonard see her again for the first time. Gorgeous stuff. There is also a sequence in an expensive restaurant where Leonard meets Michelle's lover. The way Gray first positions Leonard when arrives early, and then how the entire scene is staged as Elias Koteas' Ronald - the lawyer - so clearly commands over the table is fantastic.

This is a film that so thankfully doesn't reveal in histrionics or big emotional scenes, but heart wrenchingly explodes with small moments, hesitant words and desperate longing. A great film -- I can't wait to see it again.

[John Cope]

An absolutely splendid career overview for all of us who are "pro-Gray".

[foggy eyes]

After seeing this tonight and catching up with We Own the Night recently, I am now totally pro-Gray. Two Lovers is a near-masterpiece of tone - tremendously assured (formally & structurally), deeply classical and deeply romantic. I'll have to refrain from writing more so as not to turn this post into nothing more than a string of superlatives...

Thanks to all on this thread for their thoughts, and those (John Cope, Oedipax) whose recs forced me to get round to Gray after all this time. Next up: The Yards.

[domino harvey]

I caught this thanks to its repeated appearances in the Dynamic 2009 thread and now it has another plum spot. The film is simply put a masterpiece, no qualifications needed. For everyone jizzing over the New Yorkness of the Girlfriend Experience, may I direct your attention to the proper target? Two Lovers is a traditionally structured Hollywood film adorned so beautifully that I kept getting worried the picture would fall into the listless independent film indulgence that comes so easily from movies with a similar aesthetic. But no, it remains strong and sure throughout. The terrific Vinessa Shaw is really the picture's unsung MVP, but Phoenix winningly channels Montgomery Clift to a T (God, if he really did decide to quit acting after his performance art fizzles, what a way to go). Great score too.

[Nothing]

Deeply underwhelmed. Subscribes to the Rain Main cliche of an autistic character who, despite his disability, is deeply lovable and - taking it a step further, in this case - deeply attractive to women... Preposterous flattery of Phoenix, this being the case. The better moments are a rip of A Short Film About Love. Slightly preferable to We Own the Night, nonetheless.

[rs98762001]

Paltrow is a "wanker" like all Americans who start to speak "British" ("When it comes to knowledge of film history, I’m semi-rubbish"). God I hate her even more than Audrey Hepburn.

I'm coming to this a little late, but the best Gwyneth quote in this article is when she astounds everyone by announcing the following about Sofia Coppola:

I thought it would be cool to hear her picks, as she is not only incredibly talented, but a woman as well!

Who knew?

[Clevinger]

Am I the only one who thought that the film, at least for the first 45 minutes or so, seemed to be about people in their thirties acting like (and treated like) they were 16? For a while I even thought it was some kind of intentional joke. Didn't disturb much though. I loved the film. Gray's best since Odessa.

[Tark]

SpoilerShow

Wished it would have ended with Phoenix being rejected again.

[King Prendergast]

The dance sequence in the film is the best of its kind since The Magnificent Ambersons.

[Oedipax]

Critic Michal Oleszczyk has done a nice partial commentary on Two Lovers here and here.

[gokinsmen]

This was a well-executed film, I guess. Very conventional, totally safe, but well-executed = "classical" filmmaking. More importantly, it flatters the lives of its target audience (sheltered bohemian 20 and 30-somethings) so I'm not surprised by all the online/blogsphere swooning over it. Gwyneth Paltrow was actually the best thing about this film -- she made a Lifetime movie character more palpable than she had any right to be.

[Alphonse Doinel]

I disagree. The raves about Grays 'classic' style of filmmaking is attributed to the fact that he doesn't seem to have that 'lets figure it out in post' mentality. I've only see Two Loves and We Own The Night, but both definitely show strong direction, rather than quirky, trendy, or superfluous.

Very curious to see what Gray does with The Lost City of Z. Not the greatest book, but a very fascinating subject.

[Grand Illusion]

Just caught up with this. The film is contrived to hell and back, but it didn't end up bothering me. At the beginning, I was put off by the simple ease this bipolar, suicidal Jewish man who lives at home, works a banal job for his parents, and has scars on his wrists, could possibly gain the interest of the titular two lovers. Nevertheless, the plot must go on.

And so it does, but with an elegance and assured observance of its characters. I agree with much of poster John Cope's write-up. For me, the touchstone throughout the film is the wonderful Vinessa Shaw. It's her character Sandra, albeit in less scenes than Leonard (Phoenix) or Michelle (Paltrow), that I was truly rooting for.

Gray sets up a scene of high tension as Leonard waits for Paltrow to run away with him. Throughout the scene Sandra's fate lies in the balance. I wanted not only the empathetic and flawed Leonard to find what he perceives as true love, but I wanted the two damaged personalities to flee far away from Sandra. The crucial moment is after Sandra admits that she isn't desired by many men, and Leonard sexually uses her, in front of an open window, as a show for Michelle. It's her character, then, that draws the sympathy and truly fulfills the tragic and, frankly, creepy tone of the finale.

[Toby Dammit]

I don't see Fellini at all in this movie...

It´s all about Visconti: "Le Notti Bianche" (obviously) and "Rocco". The scene when Leonard meet Paltrow is identycal to the scene when Vincenzo (the older brother) meet Nadia, in the staircase of the poor milanese building. In fact; both girls have a discussion whit her fathers.

[rohmerin]

The Fellinian touch perhaps from i vitelloni (Caracthers in the 30's now, 20's in Fellini, all of them acting as 15) but I noticed more Antonioni or Bergman winter desolation - aislation influence.

After TWO years of delay, in 2010 this film arrived to our devasteted Kingdom, Spanishthan and one friend (woman) told me that this was the best American film she saw in years. I always trust her, and she was right. Absoloute wonderful, it looks like an Europan film, very bitter, with a sadness that scares me more than explicit violence. The suffering because "love hurts" is frighten and the end is just like a horror film. WoW ! I don't have words in English for describing my impression. Unhappiness, forever.

The boy and the girl are so fucked up, and given that they are neighbours, I remembered another same building love affair: Breakfast at Tiffany's. This is the dark side of another couple suffering and taking time. Paltrow is a protegée in some sense, don't you think? But what a price she has to pay for it. Her lover is a prick, un gilipollas, con, stronzo, in all languages. We hate you, Parvenu.

I found all their teenager acting very romantic. Kissing and screwing in secret, I want that. Peter Pan complex, may be, but real.

It's deep, it's honest, it's fun, it's not pretencious, it's so well written and directed that I can understand the cult fame that it has n France and Spain (like 500 days of summer, another bitter tale in the European tastes). Sadly, my parter forced me to watch it dubbed and now I want to re watch it as soon as time allow me for listening in English.

I don't like Paltrow very much, her image is like a Park Av princess for me, but here she is sobber and brilliant. I read you guys have noticed that her VIP London life has change her accent. Is it transatlantic? That's very sexy for me. But I'm very strange and accents always turns me on, so, don't freak out with my confession.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm continuously enamored with this film, and I fall more in love every viewing. Gray does something very unique in following a predictable narrative structure with a raw energy that deprives us of the kind of purified cathartic meaning from traditional cinematic arcs that doesn't exist in reality. This film is beyond relatable. The post-breakup depressions, and not only chasing but depending on an outcome from an unpredictable partner, are on point and we are sold right with Phoenix because Gray channels those overwhelming emotional butterflies into every scene with his attentive and empathetic camerawork. The actors are all excellent in portraying their roles with the right amount of self-consciousness and bursts of confidence that we sense take enormous energy to to produce, overcoming anxieties through high risks of rejection to forge connections.

Phoenix's back-and-forth between women is also too real, and is such an accurate yet taboo idea when depicted this desperate that it takes a familiar plot point and whittles it down to its less-glamourous essence. Whether you see this as ugly or beautiful will probably define your opinions on the film, but I think validating our mechanisms to combat and cope with loneliness, and learning through experience that our ideals and our necessities don't line up, is what Gray is doing here, culminating in a surrender toward acceptance. The final realization and subsequent decision is so fucking bold it reminded me of Phantom Thread's bitter truth in compromise of the false expectations of true love for what one needs relatively, that movies don't want- or dare- to tell most of the time, but Gray does because he values emotional honesty and vulnerability above all else. Of the two films, I may prefer the Anderson, but this is the most humble exhibition of human authenticity, and perhaps the best examination ever on the subject of what really matters in relationships.

[nitin]

I really need to revisit this but my main struggle with connecting with this film emotionally, at least the way Gray wants us to, is that I did not really feel or understand the perspective of Vinessa Shaw's character's attraction to Phoenix's.

[therewillbeblus]

I think I had a similar problem the first time but now I find that mystery to be very naturalistic and another great example of the how the film recontextualizes expectations. We are somewhat aligned with Phoenix, who is awkward and withdrawn and has low self-esteem in some ways, so there’s a symbiotic perspective that reflects his core belief of ‘How could anyone like me?’ or ‘I’m unloveable’, especially after the jarring event that kicks off the film. But in addition to joining him on a subjective journey, we are also witnessing an objective account and, in a rare move, not artificially spoonfed all the reasons of tangible markers of attraction that we are accustomed to getting in romance dramas. So when Phoenix moves in on Paltrow, we sense his anxiety but also a motivation to push forward to unlocking some confidence for an object of affection, and when he’s on the road to going dancing with them, I always mistakenly sense that he’s just talking himself up without a plan. But then we see him in action(!) and that reveal for me is exhibit A in disrupting the viewer’s alignment with Phoenix toward understanding that there are sides of him we don’t and can’t ‘know.’ He’s more complex than just the ‘weird guy’ protagonist from these typical stories, a characterization who is traditionally more one-dimensional in how they lean socially and psychologically. Shaw obviously sees something in him that neither we the audience, nor Phoenix himself, is able or willing to see. The latter for him because he’s enamored with someone else, and in those situations (in real life too) the world tends to stop and our impressions are skewed with blurry vision, blinded by infatuation.

I also think that there is a practical element to her attraction. The family ties, we are aware of, but Shaw is definitely also a lonely, nervous person looking for someone to love. She noticed him at a past gathering and felt an immediate attraction just like Phoenix does with Paltrow with limited information before he starts stalking her and compulsively attempting to forge a union. The film doesn't shame that approach and even if Shaw's story is omitted from the narrative we see, it's not that different. The film’s view of attraction recognizes both an internal logic of uncontrollable feeling based on limited information and selfish needs based on emotional vacancy. The angle of multifaceted logic in a relationship is underplayed until the end, but Gray’s final permission for logic to become merged with emotional need is mature and true in all the ways romantic films generally refuse to grant their characters or express to their audiences.