Writer/Director didn't make the movie he thought he...

made. At least comparing what the director says and what ends up on the screen.

SPOILERS!

Despite playing fairly long for a romance, I thought this had some holes, so I watched the deleted scenes, 'the making of' documentary, and some of the commentary (I intend to watch it all).

For me, the religious angle was extremely inconsistent. Nicole mentions to the mother so early on that her new boyfriend (actually even before he's really her boyfriend) is Jewish, signaling that this might be a major issue; but nothing comes of it for some time. Then, much later in the film, we get Elizabeth's outburst at the hospital. Unfortunately, aside from the content itself, which is reprehensible; it is hard to take it seriously given that we know that she is losing her mind (Alzheimers). Otherwise, religion doesn't really play a role in the evolution and devolution of their relationship (the deleted church scene might have helped). The birth control issue is medical and timing, and there is no argument over the Christmas tree. By the time the small scene between the sisters about praying before bed takes place, the relationship seems all but dead.

We also hear something about Nicole's having thyroid cancer in the deleted scenes. Again, not referenced in the actual cut of the movie. Did Stuart support her through that as well before she dumped him?

I figured the catering business fizzled away; but we don't know this (and more importantly, we don't learn she had no real enthusiasm for it anyway and it was another one of her passing fancies) unless we watch the deleted scenes.

I think the director was so obsessed with sex and full-frontal nudity he failed to worry about the story and character development (although he does treat the male and female leads equally for a change); and he dumped important plot scenes and kept overly-languorous sex scenes. At some point, they don't advance the story. They have lust and maybe love for each other. Okay, we get it. Also, we have Stuart's brother's story line. Perhaps this is meant to balance against Nicole's family; but I don't see how this informs us about Stuart of their relationship (perhaps a contrast to Stuart's conventionality?)

I wish more time had been spent giving this a New York flavor, which seemed lacking but which comes through more with the deleted scenes. Surprisingly, some have said this had a lot of NYC flavor. Having been born there and lived there most of my life, I just don't see this. Yes we get the apartment interiors and views; but the deleted church scene and Toys 'R Us scene might have contrasted better with the Montana scenes. More exteriors might also have helped with informing viewers about the passage of time, which was a problem for me.

I also felt that the way the relationship fluctuated was very uneven. I know that to achieve realism, there isn't a steady decline; but here we go from a massive disagreement over the pregnancy, to tentative reconciliation, shopping for Christmas trees, holding hands (which bizarrely occurs while Nicole says they never hold hands anymore), to a fairly abrupt end. Again, the second (deleted) Montana Christmas scene might have helped here. If indeed the original cut was three hours, I think the pacing would have seemed more consistent.

I also wasn't thrilled with the ending. It seems these days that ambiguity stands in for depth of meaning.

Edit: I should also add that, given the writer/director's stated goal of balancing the sympathies of the audience; I think he fails. Perhaps because I'm a man, I don't see their respective failings as having equal weight. Yes, he's probably too regimented and perhaps even dictatorial: he tries to shut Tess out of Nic's life (although as someone noted, she is poisonous and probably deliberately obstructive in Nic's life), financially prudent (then flamboyant), wants to wait to have children although two years is pretty normal for a couple like that, resists having the dog for reasonable if disputable reasons; yet otherwise he acquiesces to almost her every whim. Remember, they AGREED early on to wait 2 years to have children. And it seems pretty clear to me, that her desire to have a child is just as much something to do to fill the hole in her life she can't seem to fill with work, friends, love, a dog, etc.; as her many previous jobs, failed catering business, early failed marriage, etc. amply prove.

I also want to add (as others seem to have) that I lived a very similar story. I was part of a similarly mixed, long-term relationship with some scenes almost verbatim. My girlfriend wasn't Catholic; but British-Canadian and High Anglican. I'm Jewish and from New York. Her family, while being very nice and polite, also treated me as if I were an alien, with questions and situations right out of this movie and 'Annie Hall.' I could certainly identify with this movie (although not the hospital scene). That didn't ring true at all, as I believe Stuart would have been firm and polite but cutting in his response. For someone who frequently travels to places like Tulsa for business, it would not be the first time he's confronted similar if less personal mistreatment. Also, Nicole's refusal to use birth control was a function of medical issues and not religion (at least as presented in the movie).

All of this said, I'm very glad I saw the movie. It is hard to criticize something that someone has put so much of himself into, and who obviously worked so hard on with such admirable goals; and let's be honest, I haven't made a film! It was immensely thought-provoking and ultimately entertaining. The fact that opinions on which character is mostly at fault, says something was accomplished. I'm just frustrated that there was probably a masterpiece in here somewhere, much of which probably ended up on the cutting room floor. I think that, if as the director says he shot 30 hours of film, he needs to make a director's cut.