MovieChat Forums > We Don't Live Here Anymore (2004) Discussion > Pretentious?

Pretentious?

posted 17 years ago by VFaiola2
15 replies | jump to latest

Can someone who really loved this movie explain what I am missing? I spent most of the movie laughing at the ridiculous nature of the characters and the even more ridiculous metaphors.

A few issues:

1) My biggest problem was the damn train track metaphors? Jeez, they didn't even try to integrate them into the film. It was simply 'cue shot of train tracks with crossing guard going down' when no character was physically close to said train tracks. I get it. They should stop. It's a warning. It's a pretentious and overdone metaphor. Other ridiculous metaphors included the film the four main characters watched together mirroring their exact problem as well as the Adam and Eve discussion with the kids. Seriously? Those kids are talking about Adam and Eve at that moment? Right. Very true to life.

2) Plot holes out the wazzu. So, here Laura Dern's character is bitching to Naomi Watt's character while shopping. She's found out her husband is cheating! But who could it be with! I dunno....maybe since you accused Mark Ruffalo's character of banging Naomi Watt's character in the SECOND SCENE...your mind might go that route? Instead, she's so obvlious? Why?

3) Predictably boring. When Ruffalo looked like he might push his kids into the river, that was the first time I woke up and was like 'what happened, what'd I miss?' Granted, it wasn't earned. But it was SOME action. Here's the plot....sex...fight...cheating...fight...talking...cheating....sex intercut with other couple fighting.....cheating....talking. Not all movies have to be action films. And, in fact, I prefer Oscar-caliber releases to Summer Blockbusters...but would it kill the writer/director to put in a little action? Even more detailing of the emotional conflict as opposed to what, in my opinion, was simply glazed over. The film showed us the issues but never showed us the inner depths of the character's lives that lead them to such desperate situations. Dig deeper. Don't just toss cheap metaphors on top of a boring film and expect audiences to lap it up as art.

[–] eleanorruby 16 years ago

I have never read a more obnoxious (or just plain dumb) post on IMDB, which is saying a lot.

Let me break it down:

1. Why are you reading into "train track metaphors?" You know why they didn't work with the film? Because they weren't there! There were no train track metaphors, just simple scenic shots to give the audience a glimpse of the setting. That's all. And why wouldn't kids be talking about Adam and Eve? They have educated parents. It wasn't a running metaphor throughout the film; you're just pretentiously trying to analyze every single moment.

2. Laura Dern's character did not accuse Mark Ruffalo of "banging" Naomi Watts. She simply said that they both need to stop "flirting around and start acting like a married couple." In what universe is flirting equivalent to *beep* They probably both did lots of flirting. The fact that he was, that night, flirting with Naomi Watts does not mean that she would have suspected they were having an affair.

3. MARK RUFFALO DID NOT THINK ABOUT PUSHING HIS KIDS INTO THE RIVER! Are you nuts? They were having an intelligent conversation, and he swelled up with love because he was afraid of losing them (No, not because he thought they would fall into the river and be swept away.) He and his wife could have very well gotten a divorce, and they had not yet had a discussion about what they would do with the kids if that were to happen. He stood back while they talked, looked at the water (absentmindedly; the way you stare at things if you're wrought with emotion or numb to it), and scooped his children up in his arms.

I don't even know what to say about the film "not showing the inner depths of the characters' lives" or "needing more action" than "just talking" when it is a film about personal relationships. What did you want? A car chase? Mark Ruffalo to beat Laura Dern senseless? What could have made it more action-packed yet still in the realm of reality? I would really like to hear your insight here.

I would also like to know what "Oscar-caliber" films you enjoy. Forrest Gump? Pirates of the Caribbean? The *beep* Godfather? I suppose those have enough action for you.

[–] VFaiola2 16 years ago

1. Why are you reading into "train track metaphors?" You know why they didn't work with the film? Because they weren't there! There were no train track metaphors, just simple scenic shots to give the audience a glimpse of the setting. That's all. And why wouldn't kids be talking about Adam and Eve? They have educated parents. It wasn't a running metaphor throughout the film; you're just pretentiously trying to analyze every single moment.

You don't think those train tracks shots were metaphorical in nature? Scenic shots? OK, I probably shouldn't even bother with the rest if you think a director/writer would RANDOMLY assign train track shots for 'scenic' purposes....even though, if you watch the film, they are basic guidelines when the characters are approaching (or in Watts' case, leaving behind) danger.

2. Laura Dern's character did not accuse Mark Ruffalo of "banging" Naomi Watts. She simply said that they both need to stop "flirting around and start acting like a married couple." In what universe is flirting equivalent to *beep* They probably both did lots of flirting. The fact that he was, that night, flirting with Naomi Watts does not mean that she would have suspected they were having an affair.

Dern's character implied that Ruffalo's character was, at the very least, flirting with Watt's character. That's the VERY LEAST she implied. Go back and watch the movie.

3. MARK RUFFALO DID NOT THINK ABOUT PUSHING HIS KIDS INTO THE RIVER! Are you nuts? They were having an intelligent conversation, and he swelled up with love because he was afraid of losing them (No, not because he thought they would fall into the river and be swept away.) He and his wife could have very well gotten a divorce, and they had not yet had a discussion about what they would do with the kids if that were to happen. He stood back while they talked, looked at the water (absentmindedly; the way you stare at things if you're wrought with emotion or numb to it), and scooped his children up in his arms.

Did you read what I said? The way it was SHOT created a SENSE that he would. It was ridiculous. He, himself, wouldn't do it...that's why IT MADE NO SENSE TO SHOOT IT IN A SUSPENSE-CREATING FASION THAT MADE AUDIENCE MEMBERS, ALBEIT BRIEFLY THINK. HELL MY FILM PROFESSOR WHO LOVED THE MOVIE SAID IT WAS AMAZING TO BE ABLE TO CREATE THAT MOMENT. SEE I CAN USE CAPS, TOO.

I don't even know what to say about the film "not showing the inner depths of the characters' lives" or "needing more action" than "just talking" when it is a film about personal relationships. What did you want? A car chase? Mark Ruffalo to beat Laura Dern senseless? What could have made it more action-packed yet still in the realm of reality? I would really like to hear your insight here.

Other films about personal relationships that show more than tell....Big Fish, Garden State, Lost In Translation, American Splendor, Magnolia, Almost Famous, Love Actually, SLC Punk, Secretary. This list goes on and on. YOu can actually have a plot AND have outer conflicts that better reflect the inner turmoil of the characters involved.

I would also like to know what "Oscar-caliber" films you enjoy. Forrest Gump? Pirates of the Caribbean? The *beep* Godfather? I suppose those have enough action for you.

[–] VFaiola2 16 years ago

Here is a transcript from script-o-rama.

See where Dern's character flat-out ACCUSES Ruffalo of doing something with Watt's character! Did you even see the movie? Or do you simply not pay attention to what's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE?

No more of this crap, all right?
From now on, we act like a married couple.

- No more flirting around. You understand?
- No. How could I?

Who can understand
such a flaming pile of *beep*

Oh, Jack. Come on, don't play dumb.

- Please.
- Terry...

...why don't you have some wine.

We've been drinking gin.
I don't want wine.

Let's talk about this in the morning.
You're drunk and we're gonna fight.

And you have that look of yours.

Forget that look of mine.

Let's talk about you and Edith.

The little trips you take.

These damn errands.

Somebody runs out of something...

...some goddamn egg rolls, and off you go,
you and Edith.

Egg rolls? Really?

Egg rolls?

What are you talking about?

You know, you shouldn't
leave me with Hank...

...and put me in that position.
- What position?

- Jack, listen to me.
- What?

Something's going on.

I mean, either you want it to,
or it is.

That is such a lot of *beep* Okay?

What is wrong with me and Edith going off
to get a goddamn six-pack of beer?

What are you really worried about?
It's you and Hank being left alone together.

- I see you two. You're horny for Hank.
- Oh, please.

- I'm supposed to feel guilty because of that?
- I'm horny for my husband.

Jesus. We're not a couple of *beep*
honeymooners anymore, for chrissake.

Why aren't we?! We've been married
so long that you're bored?

- Terry.
- No. Is that what it is?

- You can leave anytime.
- Terry...

Maybe we should talk about...

...how long this is gonna last.
- Terry!

- I am not going anywhere!
- The kids'll be fine.

If you're suffering...

...if this is such a disappointment.
- You're the only wife I know...

...that gets pissed off at her husband
for not hanging on her at a party!

- Husbands touch their wives!
- You see Hank fondling Edith every second?

Hank doesn't love her.

He told me while you were out.

- He said that to you?
- Yeah.

- Oh, yeah?
- Yeah.

Why? Why did he tell you that?

I don't know. He just said it.

What were you doing?
He just blurted that out? Seems odd.

We were talking.
How else do people tell each other things?

When people say things like that
they're doing other things.

Yeah, I was blowing him on the porch.

- What do you care?
- I don't.

- As long as you tell me the truth.
- The truth?

Jack, you won't even admit the truth.

- You don't really love me.
- Terry, it's not true.

It's never been true. And when you say *beep*
like that, for one minute it is the truth!

- Do you understand me?
- *beep* you!

*beep* you!

Goddamn it!

*beep*

Bastard!

[–] eleanorruby 16 years ago

Yes, I've seen the film twice. I don't need you to post a transcript. I stand behind everything I previously said -- that "flirting around" is different than "banging." I thought it was senseless word choice.

I didn't find the scene in which Mark Ruffalo's character was standing with his kids by the water suspenseful whatsoever beyond emotional suspense (ie. his fears that he would be losing his wife and kids to divorce and custody battles.)

I pay attention to far more than what is "right in front of my face"; I simply don't assume that I can read a director's thoughts while making a film. Scenic shots are some of the most common shots in films. They give the audience a sense of the location. I honestly don't think that showing train tracks in a country setting means anything other than that -- train tracks in a country setting! No sign of big industry/big city stuff, no kids walking along train tracks, nothing. There is nothing you can read into there. Train tracks alone are not an omen or a sign of turmoil.
This reminds me of when kids in my poetry classes in high school would read my poems and try to reiterate what I was thinking. I was the one doing the thinking! Christ. Not every single goddamn shot is a metaphor.

I honestly don't understand how someone could call this film pretentious but like Garden State and Lost in Translation. It's perplexing.

[–] prock 16 years ago

yeah, regarding the banging vs flirting, you're clearly wrong.

"something's going on. either it is, or you want it to", clearly implies an affair. And not an affair of flirting (if there is such a thing).

[–] VFaiola2 16 years ago

Thank you prock. It's pretty clear in the script and the film that something is going on and that she knows about it early.

[–] VFaiola2 16 years ago

"I honestly don't think that showing train tracks in a country setting means anything other than that -- train tracks in a country setting! No sign of big industry/big city stuff, no kids walking along train tracks, nothing. There is nothing you can read into there."

So, the whole point of the REPEATED shots which differed only in if the crossing guards were GOING DOWN or GOING UP was simply included to show....wait for it....that there's a TRAIN IN THE COUNTRY?

Seriously? That's your case? Then, at the very least, would not these shots by wasted film? In a movie every shot, every detail should matter. If you're saying the filmmakers included shots that don't matter, then you're giving then less credit than I was...since I said they were misguided, not purposeless.

"Not every single goddamn shot is a metaphor."

No, but I'm pretty sure RANDOM shots of TRAIN CROSSING GUARDS going UP and DOWN when the character JUST HAPPENS to be in a state of transition or flux might have been intended to have a little meaning.

"I pay attention to far more than what is "right in front of my face"; I simply don't assume that I can read a director's thoughts while making a film."

So, you don't think that a director directs your attention to certain details/events providing more significance in some than others? Wow, you really do have a low opinion of directors in general.

You continue to have a problem with the simple task of reading and the slight differentiation language provides. Did I EVER say I LIKED Lost in Translation? Nope. I think it's a travesty that a 50ish page (by Coppala's own account) 'script' won Best Original Screenplay. I actually dislike the film. However, even I can not deny that it does a better job of having a plot that featured external conflict reflective of the character's internal issues. Which is what I said...that there are a TON of films that do a better job with this than We Don't Live Here Anymore.

[–] robobeatnik 16 years ago

The OP is right.

I can't believe that this won an award for its screenplay. At Sundance no less!

This was a pretentious piece of crap with (for the most part) nonsensical scenes and cyclical boredom.

Hated it.

"Do you really think it's cool to hit the sauce with a bun in the oven?"

[–] danitast 16 years ago

As a woman dealing with her military husband's cheating (yes, he's currently out to sea right now, he cheated BEFORE he left, if that doesn't beat all), this was one of those movies that definitely stayed with me for a while..i just saw it for the first time, unfortunately, when you go through this, tho only movies you see on t.v sem to be about infidelity, so it was really, really hard for me to watch this. i can't believe i had never heard of this movie before, i must say the acting was very good, and peter krause seemed to be so unaffected by all that was happening.. but all in all, a very good movie..

[–] mojo2004 15 years ago

I've seen it twice this week.I also agree with the OP's comments.

Yes it did look like either he was going to jump in the river with the kids or he was going to push them in.

Sidewalks have rights too! They refused to be stepped on anymore!

[–] Chrysanthepop 15 years ago

About the last shot that the OP mentions, for a second it did look like he was going to throw the kids and I was hoping that he wouldn't because it would ruin the film, but glad it didn't. Other than that, I think this is one brutally honest and fantastic film. About Terry's implications, 1: it could mean that she was suspecting Jack and Edith and she believed Jack which is why she was 'oblivious' later on or she just wanted to see how Edith reacts 2: she didn't like that Jack went away with Edith and left her alone with Hank, so she was more upset at him for leaving her with Hank than him having an affair with her. That's my point of view.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] scottieweiss 12 years ago

"1) My biggest problem was the damn train track metaphors? Jeez, they didn't even try to integrate them into the film. It was simply 'cue shot of train tracks with crossing guard going down' when no character was physically close to said train tracks. I get it. They should stop. It's a warning."

My sentiments exactly.

"2) Plot holes out the wazzu. So, here Laura Dern's character is bitching to Naomi Watt's character while shopping. She's found out her husband is cheating! But who could it be with! I dunno....maybe since you accused Mark Ruffalo's character of banging Naomi Watt's character in the SECOND SCENE...your mind might go that route? Instead, she's so obvlious? Why?"

Indeed. And even when she finds out about the affair, she can't be bothered to say anything to Edith about it anyway.

[–] deborahkerr1992 11 years ago

As a woman perhaps I can shed some light in this. Earlier in thw film Dern was clearly accusing her husband of cheating with Edith and not just flirting. This was evident by her mentioning the "errands" Ruffalo and Watts are always so rather to take. However when Dern is discussing her husband's infidelity with Watts, she appears to be fishing for information and possibly attempting to see Edith's reaction by coyly asking who she thinks Ruffalo is cheating with. I got the impression she was only pretending to be oblivious to hear if Watts would slip up and confess or give herself away somehow. Anyway that's how I interpreted these two scenes.

[–] daughterofolaf 11 years ago

I have to say I also thought for a minute that he was going to shove the kids in the river.

And I remember thinking The wife was fishing by talking to the friend about her husband cheating, not that she was oblivious to what was going on.

The OP and that one riled up poster both have valid points and both have idiotic statements and both are annoying dumbasses.

"It's Minnie Pearl's murder weapon."

[–] scottieweiss 11 years ago

I must say I thought the drama of the Laura fern character and her concern about the activitties of the Peter krause character were ultimately irrelevant. The only positive thing she could have done in that relationship is end it.