MovieChat Forums > Crazy Heart (2010) Discussion > Problems With Maggie's Character

Problems With Maggie's Character


Warning: Plot Spoilers be Near...


I don't blame the actress, because she's been good before and has real talent. I think the weakness in her performance starts with the screenplay. There is just too much plot contrivance placed on her role to be even close to believable.

During the course of the movie, she is all of these things: 1. An journalist who interviews Bad Blake, allowing him get some background exposition out of the way, 2. A fawning young groupie-type who sleeps with him out of awe, 3. A mother of a child whom Bad Blake will look at and see reflections of himself and his lost relationship with his own son, 4. The reason he gives up decades of drinking and gets into rehab, 5. The Big Mistake and Lost Love in his life who he looks at with a mixture of love and regret.

It is just beyond stupid to place all this plot machinery into one single character! A more skilled screenplay would have placed some of the heavy lifting in the hands of other minor characters, and as a result created a more streamlined, believable character for Gyllenhaal.

That being said, I liked almost everything else about the movie! What do y'all think?

reply

it was right.

what was missing was the "details" for those who have not walked this walk - that of either an alcoholic who has lost everything, or someone who loves an alcoholic and not only loses everything but often GIVES UP everything.

It's like a lot was left unspoken and unwritten to be "a given" and so I did get it but i know someone who saw it and was like HUH? what an IDIOT she was...

love makes us do stupid things - she had a HISTORY of bad choices, this one just one more -- they both redeemed themselves in the course of the movie and unfortunately, LOST EACH OTHER.

that brought me to tears.

reply

Well that is very nice of you to do the screenwriter's and director's job for them by filling in the blanks they left.

But if you look at what is on the screen, the film has some major problems, especially with the Gyllenhaal character...

reply

1. The director and screenwriter were the same person.

2. It is not the filmmakers' job to explain every little detail to you. As an informed and involved viewer, you are SUPPOSED to fill in those blanks. You don't do that, so you aren't a good film viewer.

In short: watch more movies. You don't know anything about what a screenwriter or director's job involves.

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

I'm completely with Carver but perhaps in a different way.

I was SO bothered watching this movie that this young, attractive "journalist" would fall -- WITHIN 24 HOURS, not after getting to know his inner goodness -- with this fat, old, bloated, smelly, vomit-soaked has-been. It seemed SO male-contrived. Reversed, you'd all see the unlikeliness here. I SO hoped that the female interest would be at least a 40 something, and someone who, like in Wrestler, took at least a while to see the inner wonderfulness of this person, but no, it played as if he were handsome AND/OR charming AND/OR rockstar successful (at the time she sleeps with him). Not there, so this is just some aging male's fantasy (still liked Jeff's performance but turned me off the movie totally).

reply

I agree with you when they kissed I was on the verge of ejecting the DVD and not bothering with the rest...I stuck it out though...but I too am sick and disgusted
with these old guys / young women things in movies. I am a 48 year old guy and I have noticed how during the course of the 40's one's body odours get worse and
worse...unlike the Blake character I am a very clean person and I am still grossed out by what getting older is doing to me. The thought of a guy ten years older than me with lousy hygiene and a mouth that must be worse than my *beep*
turning on a 20 something woman is total as you say male fantasy b.s. .

The sad truth is this. Before you get to 40 you smell of birth.
From 40 onward we all smell of death !!

reply

How ridiculous! and how false and depressing! Age is just a number, you are OLD when you THINK you are, get a hold of yourself there Dude!!

reply

Yeah I kept saying that to myself. I don't understand at all why she was attracted to him in the first place. So it made the rest implausible. I mean, I can get younger woman and older man (from experience). So it wasn' that. It's just, ew there was nothing even remotely appealing/attractive/interesting/whatever about him at all, at least not from those two interview sessions. Someone described it well...just this bloated, vomit-soaked has been booze hound. Yay wow I'm so in love!! or not. AND I can get falling for the "wrong" guy or the guy who has issues and may not be best for you, etc....so it's not that either. Just...ew, what was the draw for her?

reply

I think she was hasty in leaving him... for that reason

a WICKEDLY HILARIOUS music video about BULIMIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1r2KyVWL3U

reply

Agree.

I can't believe MG was nominated for an Oscar. She was the only major flaw in an otherwise excellent film.

Not all the blame goes to MG, of course. In fact, the bulk of the blame lies with the writer/director for creating such an unrealistic character. We are never given a plausible explanation why the MG character would be motivated to enter into a relationship with a washed-out, pathetic, loser drunk 25 years her senior, thus endangering her son. If she had been a loser herself, or naive, or anything other than what she was portrayed as, it might have been believable. But as written and acted, it was ridiculous.

The only reason MG got nominated is because of Hollywood favoritism.

reply

I think had they given her more screen time, MG could have fleshed out the character better. In fact, it seems like they cut the whole movie short and after a great progression, the ending is a bit too nice and quick. Of course that's about the time Bad and Jean start having trouble, and instead of developing both characters, they just go their separate ways and that's it. The only thing resembling "closure" is that they meet at the end of the movie and are last seen talking like old friends. The TV-movie ending part is why Crazy Heart won't win Best Picture.

But having seen this type of person(s) before, I could believe the Jean character. And I didn't see MG doing anything wrong in her performance. I only wish that Maggie's nomination had knocked out Sandy Bullock's popularity nom.

reply

I highly doubt that is why it did not win. Just because it did not end the way we wished it would of. As for the closure, that happened at her door way. It also showed us that he thought about calling her as he held her sons shirt, and decided against it. I really wish in a way she would not have showed up almost 2 years later with her ring on, that had to hurt. I was hoping they would get back together in the end, but they didn't, I would not say it was a "TV movie ending" at all.

reply

I have to agree with the OP. Even though I like Maggie Gyllenhaal, I must admit her performance in this movie was okay not great. I am happy Maggie got an Oscar nomination but I thought her performance in Secretary was much stronger than this movie that's for sure.

reply

I agree as well. Her character irritated me throughout the film. I think she was a shallowly written character, but I also felt that MG couldn't keep up with Bridges. I have liked MG in other films, but I think she was all wrong for this part and didn't pull off an edge that would make her relationship with Bad believable. I think she needed less saccharine and more grit if she was supposed to carry a heavy subtext of a troubled past (that is never written). In all honesty, it was a movie that solely depended on Bridges, which is great for Bridges fans such as myself. But even though I'm a fan, the movie was not the best movie that Bridges has been in (even if his acting in this film was stellar and I fully believe he deserves the best actor award).

The film has been compared to The Wrestler, but at least in The Wrestler, Tomei's character had a gritty substance and she pulled off that tough edge needed for the role. MG falls short as does the writing of her character in Crazy Heart. I was pretty disappointed.

reply

I think the movie suggests - but does not detail - that the character had her own past demons and present fears. She says Buddy was the result of a mistake in the past. She perhaps picked a binging charming alcoholic again. I read the plot progression to see that she is prone to fall for charming losers, but gun-shy. At the first sign of trouble she runs. The character is complicated, even if we don't get it all explained for us.

reply

Agreed with the OP...Maggie's character was rubbish.

Her big journalism angle gets tossed out after about 5 seconds. She doesn't seem to wrestle with any sort of journalistic integrity before she bones Bad. I just really could not agree more with the OP, she had too much involvement in all the movement of the story and as a result her character was all over the place, unexplained and lame.

reply

Maggie should have been shown as much more anxious and angry while her son was missing -- anxiously pacing and yelling at Blake -- alternating between tears and screaming. Any parent who's child is missing gets 'over-the-top' hysterical. With good cause, too.

reply

DUDE, the kid showed up seconds later... period. she was pretty EFFIn P.O'd

you wanna see some WICKED, WICKEDLY AWESOME STUFF?:
www.trikeaband.com

reply

i think to say she was "endangering her son" is unfair to say. how was she? yes, he drank, but was there any reason to think that would happen otherwise? and come on, people fall for other people... sometimes they're older ... sometimes they're not perfectly suited. that's life.

a WICKEDLY HILARIOUS music video about BULIMIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1r2KyVWL3U

reply

Her acting in this movie was just horrible, period. Just saying, my opinion, I could just not believe how terrible it was. I thought this movie was excellent, and you know, all the mean comments! We fall for people for different reasons, she saw and felt something, we did not see, lets not be so shallow, and so critical, He is a human being right?

reply

I agree-she was too attractive, neat, and refined-looking, with a sweet little boy, and the movie went out of its way to make Blake's looks and actions repulsive and made him a bad singer, to boot. It was totally unbelievable, and made me dislike the movie.

reply

I agree about the lack of grit. Some people are saying things have to be implied. However, I agree with some of the other posters there has to be more of a subtext here. For instance, In the Wrestler Marissa Tomei's character she had a troubled past and a complexity to her. Also, in the Wrestler Tomei's character had a young child. I feel Tomei should of won the Oscar for best supporting actress last year she was robbed. I like Maggie Gyllenhaal, but I don't feel this performance deserved an Oscar nomination. I wasn't impressed with her acting.

reply

I blame this on the screenplay as well. Maggie is a good actress, she's been good in Secretary, Happy Endings, and others, but here she was just ok. And that's because the character wasn't believable. The script made the characters fall for each other way too quickly and without an explanation, really. Why is Bad Blake calling her and caring for her? Why her? When he clearly sleeps with other women while on the road and feels nothing for them.

The character was unrealistic, and sometimes her dialogue was, as well. It seemed like it wasn't coming from her. When Blake tells her that he loves her it seemed very unbelievable. They had met just a couple of times before.

reply

Because that's life, and that's LOVE, you can't explain why he cared for her, just because he slept with other woman on the road does not mean he was not capable of falling in love does it? and obviously he had no interest whatsoever to see anyone after he had been with her. I did not think it was un believable at all when He said "I love you" and people fall for each other quickly everyday, that's life.

reply

I agree with most of your points, Jeanniemotherof3. We, as the viewers are not supposed to understand the whys of some character's actions. Many have compared this story to that of The Wrestler, which is unfair. Both stories are based on real people but very different, in their own right. I and a minority of people, can understand why Jean was attracted to Blake, and don't think that it’s so unrealistic. I too, think Maggie's acting was way below average. She excelled only once, in the movie, and that is when she was so upset over Buddy being lost. Then, I too think she over did it but also, the character she played was sooooooooooo unlikeable, imho. I mean she was a hypocrite, with a whole set of emotional issues, which surpassed Blake's, and surpassed Blake's problems, even as a drunk.
I do understand the attraction between the two characters, and really don't need a "DEEP", involved explanation for it.
Thanks, Jeanniemotherof3 for your input.




Jack's not dead! Jack would never die without telling me, first!

reply

I think this movie just feeds into the masculine ego and fantasy that any woman regardless of her age would want an older man. I think there is a sexist tone to this movie that I don't like. Jean Craddock wasn't perfect but she easily could of attracted a young successful man. It just doesn't make sense that Maggie Gyllenhaal character Jean Craddock a young beautiful woman would want an old guy like Jeff Bridges character.

reply

I didn't think it was very believable that she would leave her son with Blake, knowing how much he drank and letting him drive around with her son in the car..I got the impression that she hadn't even known him very long. But as for the actress, I thought she did a good job.

reply

give me a break. he's interesting, he's a songwriter, he's had heartbreak... and some women are the type who want to save their guys and i think she was one of them...

and LOTS of women go for guys older than them... and sometimes way older.
why be so naive? picasso attracted a 17 year old at 57 years old... go figure.

and it's "could HAVE" not "could of"


you wanna see some WICKED, WICKEDLY AWESOME STUFF?:
www.trikeaband.com

reply

lol, agreed totally stephen!

reply

Take out the celebrity factor and then ask women how attractive these guys are ?

reply

and LOTS of women go for guys older than them... and sometimes way older.
why be so naive? picasso attracted a 17 year old at 57 years old... go figure.


SO TRUE, Stephen! I mean Picasso was not anything to look at, and actually Marie was 17 and Picasso was 45, when the affair started. Marie was living next to his first mistress, Dora, and Picasso was still living with his first wife, when the affair began. I mean, how much more dysfunctional can 3 people get?

Catherine Zeta Jones, and Michael Douglas, 25 year age difference, and you and I and many others, could add hundreds to the list.

You're spot on, the age difference was not that unrealistic.



Jack's not dead! Jack would never die without telling me, first!

reply

That's so very shallow of you.

reply

Once again some people (be they 15 or 50) demand characters in a film to act in a narrow specific manner based on their limited life experiences or personal opinions, and if those characters don't they hate the movie. When you grow up you'll find that people are unpredictable, they don't always act the way you expect or even want them to do, and THAT is realistic. You may be angry at MG's character's choices (and if you'd paid attention to the movie, you'd have noticed that SHE gets angry about her own choices), but calling what she does unrealistic just because YOU have never seen that behavior before, or more likely because it makes you upset - which it is supposed to do - is simplistic and unrealistic.

This film was terrific. If you're not open to it, so be it. But don't expect your viewpoint on what is and isn't realistic to go unchallenged.

reply

excellent point. i think a number of people in this forum are like that. they just want to explode at the characters for not being a certain way...

i personally loved this video. i thought it was tender, heartwarming, real and i had no problem with the actors or the age difference. i hate when people get peeved about age differences... WHO CARES? it's not like in reality people only date people within 5 years of themselves...
it happens ALL THE TIME people...

a WICKEDLY HILARIOUS music video about BULIMIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1r2KyVWL3U

reply

And then there are some people who are so intellectually and emotionally fragile that they get threatened when someone expresses an opinion that differs from their own. So they lash out with insults and condescension, pretend they have life experiences that were probably picked up from self-help books and trashy novels, and mischaracterize the comments more insightful posters have made.

Pay attention, you pompous blowhard: most people who criticized MG's character had positive comments to make about the film. There are very few perfect films. We are allowed to like, even love films while at the same time pointing out their flaws. You don't seem to have the mental agility to do it, but some of us can handle those nuances.

Just because somewhere, sometime, someone has behaved in a certain fashion doesn't mean it's appropriate for a character in a film. It should be clear from the large number of knowledgeable filmgoers here with criticisms that the writer/director failed to some extent in creating MG's character. As many have pointed out, it might have worked if it had been set up better. But that's all probably over your big head.

reply

My, sounds like I hit a nerve there, lem.

I had to laugh at your first paragraph once I saw that you weren't actually examining your own problems, but projecting them onto someone else. But I'd advise you to pay attention yourself before trying to lecture someone else about it. The disagreement is about MG's performance, and whether you like or dislike the film has hardly any bearing on that main point. Or did you not notice the heading to this whole message thread?

And you also didn't pay attention to the point that is integral to all these boards: Subjects on these boards are usually brought up to be debated. The OP asked in his very first post what people thought about his opinion. I answered his question. Sorry you can't handle it if everybody doesn't parrot your opinion, but if it's such a problem for you, you might want to find one of these "self-help books" you're going on about.

And your comment "The only reason MG got nominated is because of Hollywood favoritism" is just more childish pouting. I guess Academy member actors can't disagree with you about the performance of one of their peers without it being "favoritism", can they? Maybe if you'd sent out a memo to them, they would have made sure to disregard her performance out of deference to your "superior judgement". But don't worry, Monique will win anyway in that category for "Precious", at which point you can defend her win against people who will claim her win was just politically correct favoritism.

reply

I disagree... I think if she was an astronaut, schoolteacher and porn fluffer it might have been a tad unbelievable, but I believed this character completely.

:D

a WICKEDLY HILARIOUS music video about BULIMIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1r2KyVWL3U

reply

When they say Tormei was more gritty....they mean she showed her tits. I didnt find anything wrong with Maggies charecter. Remember, use the magic twig wisely

reply

>> "I was SO bothered watching this movie that this young, attractive "journalist" would fall -- WITHIN 24 HOURS, not after getting to know his inner goodness -- with this fat, old, bloated, smelly, vomit-soaked has-been." <<

This. So much.

She had to be completely damaged for this, and for leaving her precious son with him. If the movie had somehow explored this a bit, it might have made a modicum of sense.

>> "In a two-hour movie, you have to create the illusion of depth, but the illusion was broken here. She fell for him so fast and for no real reason, so you basically get whiplash while watching it unfold." <<

Agree with this as well.

reply

I think the whole movie's purpose was to showcase Bridges' acting chops. That being said, sub-plots were never explored. The entirety of the film explored Bad Blake's world and I think there's nothing wrong with that.

While Maggie's character was definitely unexplained, I don't think her characterization was lacking. Not everything should be put onscreen and I think that what made Maggie Gyllenhaal great in this movie. She was able to essay her character's "buttons" without going overboard and without giving away everything.

I totally predicted her nomination. Although the nomination is entirely to her acting merit (because I think someone in the Oscars really love the Gyllenhaal clan: Jake--- who was nominated for Brokeback even if a lot of award bodies omitted him and Maggie), I think she still deserves it as a career boost. Maggie Gyllenhaal is definitely an actress worth keeping in the industry and I think that's what Uncle Oscar is saying.

reply