Nora the lawyer was a joke - Marriage Story (2019) Discussion

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I think that the point of a lot of the movie was how an outside party, such as Nora, can escalate things to a point that they never would have without her being in the picture. It brought out a lot of the ugliness that would never have been uncovered. The movie would have been totally different without her. She was there for a reason.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Her place in the plot is clear.
Yet, she's never put in that place: the characters should have seen what her game is, at least on some level, and called her on it. She's out of control and at the end she's the main reason for most of the stuff happening: she's like the spot left by a felt pen on a paper. It keeps growing and growing till half the sheet is stained.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I don't think we see things the same way the characters do. Nora had a way about her that really didn't reveal herself to them. She would treat you really nice and then go in for the kill. Nora knows how to manipulate the clients. That is her job. Do you think that she would still be in business if all her clients saw through her and called her out on her bullshit? Nora is like a black widow, she lures you in and then just when you are at your most relaxed she goes in for the kill. Nora is not only a lawyer, but she also plays the part of a therapist. It is a two pronged relationship she is going for. As viewers, we see what is going on, but when you are in that situation, it isn't so clear. I really was upset with all of Nora's manipulations also, but I realized that she was setting them up so that they would tear each other apart. This tactic Nora uses is very common among lawyers. Most people want to work things out amicably, but once the lawyer enters the picture everything changes.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Modica I agree 100% with your analysis.
But I think, since it's not her movie, that she should have been put in her place, because the way it is now, her character and behaviour took over not only the divorce but the whole story.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

It isn't her movie, but she is a very important part to the movie, because she brings out all the stuff that was under the surface. Without Nora, the movie would be completely different. You would not get to really know who these people are. The movie wouldn't be as good or dramatic without Nora's manipulations. We get into the meat of each character and that is Nora's doing. Like it or not, she is a catalyst for much of what happens between the two characters.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Yes well, I don't like it. It's marriage story, not bitch lawyer story.

I wish they figured out all this stuff on their own, even the nasty stuff, rather than being pushed and manipulated like idiot puppets by an agent that is not part of their relationship nor story.
She should have been just one more reason to go ahead and figure things out in their dynamic, like his cheating was or her career etc. Instead, she had a bigger part than Iago had in killing Desdemona, without his depth and subletly and motivations.

It seems to me the writer still had it against his ex wife lawyer, so there she is on screen...

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

The movie is part commentary on how lawyers work and manipulate their clients. As I said, they probably wouldn't have dug up all that crap without Nora. Remember in the beginning we heard all the good things about each character from the exercise the marriage therapist asked them to write. Not sure if that third party asked them to just write a general description or did she only ask to write good things about the other. Either way, they weren't getting to the root of their problem with this therapist. Nora, on the other hand, brought all of that out. Now, I am not sure if you just wanted this couple to work things out or what, but the fact is Nora made this movie more interesting that that therapist would have. I was completely engrossed in this movie and while I did hope that they called Nora out in the end, I was also fine with the way that it all ended. Both characters moved on and acted civil to each other, and there still was some love there. It was sweet when she tied his shoe. Some would think that would mean that they are going to reunite, but I really don't think that would happen.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Wait a second...there's a big misconception in your side.
They were mislead in this direction, they didn't have it nor want it themselves.
The way I see it is this: anybody hates anybody in this world. Even the Pope or the Dalai Lama etc. If you chose to focus on the negative, even winning a billion dollars at the lottery is a bad thing.

A married couple after 7 years will have many reasons to find hate in their relationship, particularly two self absorbed egocentrics like these two.
The lawyer didn't do anything useful for anybody but herself: she didn't get to the root of anything other than hate, most of which she put in it herself.
The therapist on the other hand was working to find the positive and reenforce their connection. That's what you want in a couple, that's what they wanted in their life, both of them (see the fight scene: they wanted to be together and love each other, but at that point they felt they couldn't anymore and they were devastated for it- after the hate borught in by the lawyer).
So, like I'm trying to convey here, this Nora character is not just a catalyst of their relationship: she's an autharchic, self serving agent of doom that single handedly ruined their marriage future.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I am thinking too much about this movie. Nora's reason for being is to get her client as much as she can. That is what divorce lawyers do. We are dealing with the real world here and I think that the writer and director did that beautifully. Regardless of what you wanted this movie to be, it is what its writer and director wanted it to be. This is actually based on Noah Baumbach's actual marriage/divorce, so this is the story he wanted to tell and not the story you wanted to see and hear.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

"it is what its writer and director wanted it to be"etc
Well, that goes for any movie ever made in history now, doesn't it?
What kind of criticism is that from you?!?

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

If there was something off with Nora that didn't ring true, then I would call Baumbach out on it, but Nora and all the characters here seemed very real to me so I don't know what there is to really criticize.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

She was a conflict introduced to challenge the characters as in most fiction ... I agree with modica. I've been in the situation of going to consult a lawyer a couple times, and the majority of them will try to put you on their wallet-ectomy schedule. Paying them by the hour is also a real scam. The give you a form to fill out and if you have to go out to your car to get some information or drive home, working that out is billable hours, or going to the restroom. And they learn every little trick to pad their bills, worse than most other professionals. In this movie it did not mean they took over the plot or where the stars. I don't even know how one could come up with that concept.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Brux, the other lawyers where handled in a adequate and balanced manner by the script: they had their say in the fight, they tried to influence things, and the characters responded to that on their own.
Dern's character single handedly DERAILS the whole dynamics of the couple, the direction the story is going, and its consequences. That's how I came up with that concept (obviously). If they gave her 5 minutes more of screen time at the end, she would appear in the billboard and the title would be "divorce story" or "the divorce lawyer", because, like herself tells Nicole in the movie "you are the winner!" meaning, SHE (Nora) is the winner...

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

I think what you are missing is that the movie is slightly partisan towards the husband. The movie is told from his perspective mainly, and to him the Nora character would have been the one to attach evil and blame too. It still doesn't mean that the movie became about Nora.

I'm assuming you have a valid point somewhere in what you are saying relative to your personal experience, but I guess I'm just missing it because your complaint is that "it is not her movie", which to me does not seem like a valid complaint for any movie because they are what they are, and the movie is about the story or whatever happens in the story.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Ahah, ok you got me, I agree with your second statement. It's totally true, this is what it is and I should accept it, whatever happens in the movie.

I would put it this other way then: a better movie would have focused more on them and their actions, and left her lawyer to a more marginal role, like his lawyers were.
But you're right, this is what Baumbach decided to portray and we have to take it as a whole, Nora the lawyer monopolizing the narrative included.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

I see you point, but I don't think it would have made any difference in the "goodness" of the movie because we got enough of the interactions between them to understand and relate to what was going on with them.

Basically this is the problem with a lot of relationships, once the need is gone, or once the sex becomes routine there needs to be something left. These two were going through the motions, and it really wasn't the wife's fault ... she didn't do anything wrong.

The husband wanted more and though he was so great, that he was too good for his wife or she was not good enough for him. Familiarity breeds contempt, and when the wife realized that behind all his obfuscation he really held her in contempt and just wanted to control her because he did not want to face his own desire to want to leave. So, he decided to lie and have an affair, or maybe more than one, who knows.

When the lawyer allowed her to see this, even though she was kind of off-putting she did the wife a favor. The lawyer was really not evil or a monster, she had just seem the bad side of people and their relationships for years if not decades and knew what to do.

It may have seemed like Nora the lawyer was monopolizing the narrative, but what was really coming out was the reality of the husband. He loved his wife, but she was not enough for his life any more and he was too chicken to deal with it, and gave her no chance, and in fact held her down. Nora brought that to light ... so that was a necessary function in the story - not monopolizing the narrative ... it was the narrative.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Mmmh...I see your point, it makes sense to have her start this no return voyage if you see it through this perspective . Great analysis too.

It's still annoying to see her
do the thinking for Nicole, it takes away from the main characters and it inherently shifts the focus from their story as a couple to their story as lawyer/clients.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

The movie is extremely vexing, annoying and emotion provoking, and because of the man-woman battle of the sexes thing going on which tends to escalate things.

Nora had to do the thinking for Nicole because she was feeling, but not thinking for herself, but in Nicole's defense, she was being gaslighted.

That is what I think is great about this movie, not that it is a historical document(ary) about one side or the other or both in a divorce, but it does succeed in what they used to call consciousness raising, it opens one's eyes to looking for patterns or possibilities.

Also, the movie sort of plays with our desires or expectations of the "perfect" relationship in movies. It shows up a heck or a lot of other movies as being just so much fairy tale mythology, and that dropping it is not a catastrophe, you come out better on the other side.

Maybe? ;-)

Thanks for reading my ideas and getting them even if you do not agree or see it from a different perspective. You are a rarity on MovieChat.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

Thanks for posting so nicely and eloquently.
You are making your point and responding to mine, that's awesome chatting (which should be the idea of this whole website: chatting about movies).

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

What is this "her movie" stuff? What do you mean by that?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

That she became the main character: it's about what she does and wants more than the former protagonists, who lose agency and importance in the story.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

I didn't feel that way i.e. that she became the main character, but she did influence the whole path of both the lives of the husband and wives. I honestly cannot say for better or for worse, because we do not know what else could have or would have happened.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1069) 3 years ago

Yes, modica is exactly right. Hard disagree with the OP.

I actually thought all three of the lawyer characters (including Alan Alda's) made this film the masterpiece it is.

reply

[–] ducksoup (3933) 4 years ago

Hard disagree. Laura Dern was the best part of this movie.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

True ... Dern's character was a nightmare. It was not just Laura Dern. I really think Ray Liota gets no credit for being great in this movie. Every bit as calculating and even more reptilian than Dern. Alan Alda really creeped me out. They were all after the same thing, just had different manners to go about it.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

That doesn't mean much, in the country of the blind...

reply

[–] L1 (1316) 4 years ago

Its a "comedian"

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6319) 4 years ago

What is?

reply