We bowed low and entered the temple of driveling entertainment that is Blockbuster. After searching high and low, we discovered and blew the dust off of the indie flick, “The Squid and the Whale”:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/squid_and_the_whale/. We enjoyed it, it had this rubbernecking quality about it such that you _had_ to watch it — peeking out between your fingers as you covered your face with your hands.
Jeff Daniels’ and Laura Linney’s performances as the squabbling, separated parents (Bernard and Joan Berkman) were poignantly true-to-life, and writer/director Noah Baumbach teases out the rationalization and self-protection schemes that are all too common in divorce: “I’m hiding these books under your bed so your dad won’t take them — they’re my books, I paid for them.” It’s funny because it’s true.
In a cast interview on the DVD, Linney points out that the story is about a marriage that has reached the end of its lifecycle. Joan has found her voice as a writer, which Bernard, himself a failed writer and her bitter mentor, finds impossible to embrace. In short: she’s self-actualizing and he can’t handle it, so she’s outgrown him.
I thought Linney’s use of the word “lifecycle” was interesting, as if marriages were born into a sort of Hegelian framework: into each is sown the seeds of its own destruction. But, I don’t think that’s a particularly helpful way to think of marriage. Many achieve their highest level of intimacy and mutual respect just before they end in death rather than divorce. That Bernard couldn’t grow beyond himself and celebrate his wife’s achievements isn’t something we should come to expect as a cyclical process in marriage, it’s a dysfunction.
But the idea of a “shelf-life” or “half-life” of a marriage has merit. All marriages have some rate of decay if left unattended and uncultivated. “Entropy”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death is the inevitable result of what theologians call a “fallen world”:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%208:19-21;&version=31. None of us is very far from that point in our relationships where we disengage completely. The Squid and the Whale was an urgent reminder of the pain and suffering that comes when a marriage is run aground on the shoals of egotism and neglect.
“That Bernard couldn’t grow beyond himself and celebrate his wife’s achievements isn’t something we should come to expect as a cyclical process in marriage, it’s a dysfunction.” That is a very well-written sentence.
Give a monkey a keyboard, he\’s bound to \”come up with something\”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem.
well done, Ken. You sound like you should be writing critical, America-changing essays.
Agreed, excellent review. You paint well with words and draw me in. I personally liked the paragraph starting “Jeff Daniels’…” I will risk the rage and squabble a bit, though.
Angela picked out for for merit one of the two sentences in the piece that didn’t really make sense to me. Failure to grow beyond oneself and celebrate your wife’s achievements doesn’t seem like a cyclical process you would generally expect in marriage, but something peculiar to the character of Bernard in this particular movie (or maybe egotistical men married to liberated women). Did you mean something like: “Bernard’s failure to grow beyond himself and celebrate his wife’s achievements isn’t something we should see as the result of an unavoidable, cyclical process in marriage, but a dysfunction.”?
I like your point about lifecycles, and would take it a step further to assert that it applies to relationships in general, not just marriage (a recent variation in human mating) or marriage based on individual, personal commitment (even more recent). They all require sacrifice, dedication, and renewal.
I think that in the movie, disfunction stems largely from Bernard’s narcissism. His relationships center around his position as the master, or imparter of knowledge (academic, ping-pong, parenting). When Joan evolves past that role, the relationship breaks down. The opening scene is a simultaneously hilarious and squirmtastic display of his petty, ridiculous need for domination.
In short, I see the core issue as being Joan’s refusal to remain in a submissive role. This brings me to the other sentence. Your reference to Paul’s Christian worldview at the end seems out of place, especially given Paul’s other statements on wifely submission and your criticism of Bernard. Don’t you think that Paul would blame the breakdown on Joan’s failure to adhere to dictated family hierarchies, then celebrate it as a manifestation of God’s propensity for using hardship as a tool to draw us in?
I think your analysis is most alluring in the last paragraph — it begs for more discussion. What can see commitment (and relationships in general) in America safely to port? I think that as a culture we are growing immune to proscribed social arrangements and pressures which may have added stability to relationships in the past (with both positive and negative outcomes). While I see evidence that belief systems can offer tools for improving relationships, divorce rates of believers track closely to those of the general public. Does this mean simply that everyone is wrong about this (and some are lucky), or that the truly helpful tools for relationship maintenance are solidly outside the realm of theological belief? Is the divorce rate even a useful statistic?
Thoughts? Conversation?
Perhaps one of the “cyclical process[es] you would generally expect in a marrige” is to be selfish, and that learning to die to oneself is much harder than we all thought when we said, “I do…”.
Loving someone every day has got to be the hardest thing we ever choose to do…
it has to be a daily effort, to set self aside, and to take action to love someone. And that action can be taken only through the Strength of Someone Else.
Further little thoughts on this:
http://jenny.sojourn-of-grace.net/?p=10