MovieChat Forums > Deux jours, une nuit (2014) Discussion > Why didn't Sandra try reasoning with peo...

Why didn't Sandra try reasoning with people a bit more? (Spoilers)


Sandra's only argument is (implicitly) something like: it would be truly terrible for me if I lose my job, whereas your bonuses (+overtime possibilities) just make you a little better off, so vote for me as the on-balance best overall outcome.

When various colleagues either (implicitly) disagree with her assessment of what the best overall outcome is or indicate that they only care about themselves (and don't give two hoots about the overall situation), Sandra just caves and walks away.

Now, maybe this just speaks to Sandra's depression, but I would have thought that Sandra would have back-up lines of reasoning available (hell, even offer to pay the ninth and tenth votes half their bonus if that's what it takes!).

That is, I expected Sandra to at least try some explicitly moral reasoning focussing on reciprocity, solidarity, etc.. E.g., 'Don't you get it? If I get bumped off in this way, then if Jean-Marc next decides he doesn't like *you* for some reason (perhaps you're off sick for a little while) then you could be in the same pickle: everyone gets offered a bonus if *you* get fired. You wouldn't like that; you'd know that that your colleagues were being lured into doing something shameful; and you know that that's how it is with me now. We have to stick together...'

Moreover, Sandra never tries any explicitly Christian or quasi-marxist/workers v. bosses lines of reasoning (the former is brought up by one of her colleagues near the end).

Possible thought: perhaps part of the discouraging picture the Dardennes want to paint is that of a modern Belgium/Europe largely devoid of moral/normative vocabulary. Sandra is depressed but she's also just got no way of offering reasons to her co-workers, rather she can only talk about herself and let them talk about themselves. Sandra's encouraging 'breakthrough' at the end is that she at least enacts a moral standpoint, one that automatically gives her self-respect through having exhibited respect for others dignity.

reply

I completely agree. The entire movie just consisted of the same scene 16 times. She never once said anything different. I get that her character is a push over but really I didn't see some arc for her to not change her argument a single time or actually stand up for herself, but then walk down the street with a smile on her face after she gets fired.

reply

The entire movie just consisted of the same scene 16 times. She never once said anything different. I get that her character is a push over but really I didn't see some arc for her to not change her argument a single time or actually stand up for herself, but then walk down the street with a smile on her face after she gets fired.


I don't know if you ever seen any other Dardenne Brothers movies, but, they NEVER tell you how to feel. They just show you tiny bits and slices of life and you have to piece it together yourself.

And, I strongly urge you to rewatch the movie. Particularly, from the time she visits her friend for the second time until the ending. There is a MAJOR change in the arc of the story and her life. It's just done with typical Dardenne modesty.

reply

Well said.

reply

I found her co-workers' varied reactions to be the difference between the scenes. Clearly, the soccer coach was the most extreme, but the subtle differences in the way people reacted was very accurate. Good job of holding "a mirror up to nature."

reply

That's French cinema for you. It's a very understated drama, but there's a beauty to it's simplicity. Subtlety, for me at least, is something I very much enjoy seeing in film.

"I wish I wasn't afraid all the time, but I am."
-V for Vendetta

reply

"The entire movie just consisted of the same scene 16 times."

Not true, actually. If you watch her carefully, she approaches people and speaks differently to each. Her body language subtly changes. Her mood also changes. And so on. There's a lot going on. No wonder Cotillard was nominated for an Oscar for this performance.

reply

Maybe you've overthought this swanstep?

At the start she has given up, accepted defeat and has to be persuaded to try and do something about her situation. Her heart isn't in it, hence the half-hearted attempts to get people on her side.

She's going through the motions but then grows into her struggle and, by the end, the fight has made her a happier and more confident person.

reply

At the start she has given up, accepted defeat and has to be persuaded to try and do something about her situation. Her heart isn't in it, hence the half-hearted attempts to get people on her side.

She's going through the motions but then grows into her struggle and, by the end, the fight has made her a happier and more confident person.


This.

reply

[deleted]

I completely disagree. I find it perfectly understandable that she didn't use any other arguments. She wanted to, nicely, decently, remind them she exists. Here is my situation, I really wish you could help me.

Now, what would you do when you see your collegue tell you he's so sorry, but he's the only breadwinner in the house, that he wishes you all the best, but it would be a catastrophe for him if people voted for you so that he loses the €1000?

The economical arguments you mention (investing in a hypothetical future i.e. what will happen to you when you get sick?) are not applicable when you have just been told people desperately need the money. "I understand you can't give up €1000 for me, but can you give it up for a brighter future?" make it sound as if you didn't believe them. She did.

Resorting to moral arguments and preaching is beneath her: it was never her intention to tell people how bad they are for not being able to help her out. She even apologises for asking people what they can't give her.

Finally, in this quest for humanity despite the profit, the idea about buying off the last couple of people is simply disgusting.

reply

Excellent response.

jj

reply

Plus, her methods were pretty successful - she managed to convince eight of her coworkers to join her side. So why do things differently?

reply

I had many of the same thoughts, but one of the things I admired about her was the way she empathized with everyone she spoke to and did not become angry when they said no. Her main reaction was, "I understand." Then again, I think it was a symptom of her depression that she didn't fight harder or come up with more creative solutions & compromises. I went through a depression when I was in my 20s and believe me it was an effort to just get out of bed every day - and being with people was completely exhausting.

reply