Bizarre Love

Movies: The One I Love


In this post, I will offer a spoiler-free review of the film The One I Love as well as a much longer review complete with spoilers. Just as with The Cabin in the Woods, which I reviewed back in April of 2012, The One I Love has multiple levels of spoilers, making for one crazy, trippy movie that's also really difficult to talk about. If you haven't seen The One I Love and would like a wholly innocent, pure experience, just don't read any of this and go see the movie. Come back and read my review when you've finished...


Well, okay, if you want to know a *little* about the movie...

The One I Love (spoiler-free!)

The One I Love is the first full-length film by Charlie McDowell. It stars Mad Men's Elisabeth Moss and mumblecore veteran Mark Duplass. Moss and Duplass play Sophie and Ethan, a married couple who are trying to work through infidelity (Ethan cheated on Sophie). They see a therapist (Ted Danson), who recommends they squirrel away at a retreat to reconnect with one another. The retreat is pretty nice--basically, a big house, a pool, and guest house, complete with a photo-book of other happy couples who have emerged from the retreat more deeply in love than ever.

But then some weird shit goes down.

That's literally all I can say, or I'd give too much away. You want more info? See the movie or read the rest of my review.

I can safely say that I really, really enjoyed The One I Love. Duplass and Moss are great--they really nail the comfort and tension of two people who have been together for years and are going through a hard time, yet trying to forgive one another. They both juggle changing emotions--from annoyance to anger to lust to affection--with great skill. The One I Love has received mixed reviews from film critics, but I for one thought it was unique and really interesting. Go see it!

4.5 out of 5 stars

                                                                                   Photo courtesy of thedissolve.com


***

The One I Love (with spoilers!)

Alright, so here's the deal. The whole fucking plot of this movie IS the spoiler. About 15-20 minutes into the film, the two lovebirds check out the guest house at their little retreat, have some dinner and wine, and end up screwing on the couch. Sophie says she wants to sleep in the guest house, but she wants to get some clothes from the main house first, so she heads over...only to find Ethan sleeping on the couch of the main house. Understandably confused, she asks how he made it there before she did. He says he doesn't know what she's talking about and they have a fight. Later, Ethan walks over to the guest house to find empty wine bottles, a joint still smoking in an ash tray, etc. Sophie comes in, says "I'm sorry", and the two snuggle to sleep. Next morning, Ethan heads back to the main house and finds Sophie, who was cooking him breakfast in a cute nightie in the guest house not two minutes before, emerge in an oversize sweatshirt from the main house's bathroom.


Sophie and Ethan take turns checking out the guest house--alone--only to find a more idealized version of each other waiting for them there. Rather than freaking the fuck out and getting the hell out of dodge, Sophie convinces Ethan to stick around and explore what's going on in more depth. They make a few rules--they can't have sex with the doppelgangers in the guest house, they can't spy on each other when one is in the guest house, and they get 15 minutes at a time in the guest house. Well, Sophie immediately breaks that last rule, causing Ethan to break the 2nd rule by peeking in on her while she gets an awesome shoulder massage from Ethan 2.0 in the guest house. Some kinky shit, man.

You might think that this is as weird as the movie gets...but you'd be wrong! After a few nights of exploring the guest house (well, Sophie definitely does a lot of "exploring" with Ethan 2.0, whereas real Ethan barely wants to be around Sophie 2.0 because he's creeped out by her), the doppelgangers show up in the main house! Scary! The scenes where the doppelgangers confront the originals is pretty fun since it gives Mark Duplass a chance to play the more alpha male Ethan 2.0 alongside his suspicious beta male real Ethan character, and for Elisabeth Moss to have real Sophie compliment Sophie 2.0 and then have Sophie 2.0 act all bitchy to real Sophie when no one is looking. Seriously, this movie is a trip.

There are more secrets to be explored in the guest house, which Ethan does while the doppelgangers are occupied in the other house. He finds some shit that is way spookier than anticipated. The doppelgangers are not innocent creatures who just want to help Sophie and Ethan through their marital troubles, but usurpers who actually want to take their place out in the real world and trap Ethan and Sophie at the guest house retreat...unless they assume the identities of the next troubled couple to show up. Can real Ethan convince real Sophie to escape before it's too late? Or is real Sophie falling in love with Ethan 2.0?

What I like about this movie is that there's no in-depth explanation about how all of this is possible. There's no secret lab where we see a mad scientist creating the doppelgangers. You find out what's going on in stages throughout the movie, but there are some things the film just leaves as a mystery--like how a couple gets "trapped" in the guest house and then manages to actually take the form of the next couple. And really, that's a good thing because the whole film is pretty obviously an elaborate and layered metaphor for identity and relationships. I'd need to see the film again to come up with a more coherent explanation, but I liked the one provided by Moze Halperin on Flavorwire. Halperin argues that the film is a metaphor for modern day serial monogamy--how we are constantly looking for, getting into, and getting out of romantic and sexual relationships, and in doing so, reinventing our identities again and again. Sometimes in small, innocuous ways ("You love Vietnamese food? Oh my God, so do I!") and sometimes in more drastic, harmful ways ("She hurt my feelings, but I'll keep it inside since I don't want to lose her").

A simpler explanation is that The One I Love is a metaphor for how we idealize, well, the ones we love. How the gloss of a new relationship can slowly erode until we see imperfections that we somehow missed (but were always there) in the honeymoon stages--and how we sometimes try to force our loved ones to conform to this vision we have of them, and not let them be the imperfect vessels they actually are. The film asks the question, "if you could have a perfect version of your partner, would you want it?" Sophie responds with a resounding "Yes!" by getting turned on by Ethan 2.0, who stops wearing his glasses, does sit-ups, and massages Sophie's shoulders. Ethan responds with a heartfelt "Fuck, no!" by being thoroughly creeped out by Sophie 2.0 who is sweeter and cooks him bacon.

However you want to read The One I Love, I found the movie to be a surprisingly light-hearted take on the difficult topic of marital strife and imperfections in relationships (or, flat-out betrayal, as Ethan's cheating on Sophie is replicated by Sophie falling for Ethan 2.0). The film could have been melodramatic, but even during the creepy parts it managed to stay bubbly (at least for me). Think "The Twilight Zone" with a less heavy-handed message. The One I Love is a smart, fun, intriguing film.

4.5 out of 5 stars

Laughing in the Bedroom

Movies: They Came Together

In They Came Together, Amy Poehler and Paul Rudd take the lead as Molly and Joel, a couple who meet-cute while attending a Halloween party thrown by mutual friends. They're both dressed up as Ben Franklin, bald cap and all, but they're too busy being annoyed by one another to see that they are clearly "meant to be". When Molly, who owns a small, independent candy store, finds out that Joel works for Candy Systems & Research (basically, "Big Candy"), her hatred for him grows stronger. Can these two crazy kids see past their differences to make a love connection?

If the premise of this movie sounds like a stupid romantic comedy, that's because They Came Together is a parody of a stupid romantic comedy in the vein of Airplane and Austin Powers (only not as clever). They Came Together is moderately funny, but rather unfocused. There were some truly laugh-out-loud moments (especially in the rare scenes where the film veered toward offensiveness or absurdity, more on that later) scattered among a mostly chuckle-inducing sweet film.

The film's strength lies in its cast. Rudd and Poehler are reliably funny as the leads, but the secondary characters--particularly Christopher Meloni as Joel's boss at Candy Systems and Melanie Lynskey and Teyonah Parris as Molly's gal pals--really round out the movie and its myriad of rom-com tropes.

About those tropes: most of the jokes were a bit one-the-nose in their attempts to satirize romantic comedies. Poehler's character, for example, is a huge klutz who's always falling down, and Joel starts the film in a relationship with a woman who is beautiful "but a little cold" (played gamely by Cobie Smulders) and obviously not right for him.

However, director David Wain managed to surprise me a couple times by throwing in a bizarrely sexual or scatological joke when you would least expect it. A gag that involves a character stuck in a tight superhero costume at a Halloween party was completely out of place, but also one of the funniest scenes in the movie.

The thing that is a bit disappointing is that I know David Wain is capable of better comedy. A veteran of the sketch comedy troupe The State, Wain directed Wet Hot American Summer (also a parody, this time of summer camp movies) which is leaps and bounds more clever than They Came Together. One of his more recent films, Wanderlust (which also stars Rudd), is funnier as well. So even though They Came Together isn't *bad*, I just know it could have been better.

Given the awesome cast, They Came Together is worth renting on a rainy day. And obviously, since humor is highly subjective, you might find the movie much funnier than I did. But if subversion is what you're after, you won't find (much) of it in this film.

3.5 out of 5 stars

Naked and Afraid

Movies: Stranger by the Lake

Stranger by the Lake is a French naturalistic erotic thriller. Got all that? The film, which takes place at a single location--a lake where gay men go to cruise--is slow moving with a plot that asks more questions than it answers.

Protagonist Franck (Pierre Delodonchamps) comes to the lake nearly every day one summer, and strikes up a friendship with loner Henri, a heterosexual man who prefers hanging out in this cruising spot because people actually talk to him (unlike the side of the lake where families go and he is treated like a "creep"). Franck also develops a crush on Michel (Christophe Paou), who looks like a slightly more rugged Freddie Mercury.

Spoiler? Or pivotal plot point? ahead:

One night after dark, Franck spies Michel out in the lake with his lover. Michel pushes the man under the water, killing him. Rather than immediately go to the police, Franck slowly becomes closer to Michel, playing dumb about his lover ("What about your man?" he asks Michel when they kiss for the first time. "He won't see us." replies Michel). The tension of the film hinges on both *why* Franck is so willing to play with fire and how much Michel knows about what Franck knows.


/end spoilers.

I found Stranger by the Lake to be fairly boring, to be honest. It's a thriller, but a very low key one. The stakes are high but the actions of the characters are confusingly passive. I read a review where the director suggests that the film can be read as a metaphor for AIDS: there is very real danger at this cruising spot, but in the haze of lust some folks are happy throwing caution to the wind. That's an interesting interpretation of the film, but it hardly breaks new ground in LGBTQ cinema.

I also found the whole "cruising spot as locale for violence" trope a little...hrrrmmm. I realize the movie isn't *trying* to be homophobic, but its suggestion that (some?) gay men will take any risk to get laid is more than a little insulting. But as I'm not a gay man, my opinion only carries so much weight here.

The one excellent aspect of Stranger by the Lake is the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. The scenery has a dreamlike quality that reminded me of Picnic at Hanging Rock. There's a lot of silence and a lot of wind blowing through the trees (it's an easy movie to fall asleep to, for better or for worse). The overhead shots of men swimming in the lake are especially striking.

But as for the plot and acting, there just wasn't enough. The characters in the film spend the vast majority of the movie naked, and there are some explicit sex scenes. But for all the nudity I never felt like I saw beyond the tanned skin of the characters: their thoughts, fears, and motivations remain, for the most part, a mystery.

3.5 out of 5 stars

Crazy Train

Movies: Snowpiercer


It's such a cliched thing to say, but Bong Joon-Ho's latest futuristic thriller, Snowpiercer, is unlike any movie I've seen before. Based on the French graphic novel, which has only recently been published in English, Snowpiercer takes place in the not-too-distant future. To combat global warming, scientists have created a chemical that when released in mass quantities into the atmosphere lowers global temperatures. Unfortunately, the plan backfires and global temps drop, covering the earth in ice and snow. The few who survive board a train which runs eternally on a track all over the world.

Obviously, you have to suspend your disbelief a bit in order to enjoy this film.

The train, which gets its name from its ability to blast through ice and snow drifts, is a microcosm of our current world: a lucky, wealthy few enjoy the debauched pleasures, such as steam rooms, delicious food, and drugged out parties, at the front of the train. The vast majority of the passengers live in cramped filth in the back of the train and eat disgusting protein bars every day. Enforcers with guns make sure the lower class don't try any funny business to make it to the front.

Chris Evans, the actor who I mainly know through a slow-motion gif of his ass moving back and forth, is unrecognizable as Curtis. Curtis boarded the train at age 17 and saw, up close, the horrors that starvation and deprivation can lead people to. He and his younger buddy, Edgar (Jamie Bell), are planning a revolt to try to make it to the front of the train and into the engine room, where they will confront Wilfred, the mysterious man who created the "sacred engine" that allows the train to run eternally.

There are a lot of shocks and surprises as Curtis makes his way through the train, but there are also some dark laughs. Tilda Swinton is wonderful as Minister Mason, a bizarre, Margaret Thatcher-esque woman who enforces behavior in the lower classes. Swinton's character is something else, and scenes with her add much needed levity to an otherwise very dark and depressing movie. I was continually amazed at how the director seemed to perfectly balance violence with humor, steampunk fantasy with gritty reality, and soul-crushing revelations about the train and human nature with a whiff of hope. Bong Joon-Ho gives it his all in this movie, and even though Snowpiercer seems to transcend genres in many ways, it never feels overstuffed. It left me wanting more.

As for the style of Snowpiercer, apt comparisons have been made to Terry Gilliam (Brazil) and Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Delicatessen, The City of Lost Children). Both of those directors are masters at futuristic fantasy and social satire. I'll also throw in Wes Anderson, who is known, particularly in The Life Aquatic, for his stylized scenes of rooms and spaces. Like these other directors, Bong Joon-Ho puts space at the front and center of this film, and I felt almost dizzy trying to get a sense of how long the train was and how certain scenes could possibly take place in what must be truly cramped quarters. But Snowpiercer deliciously fucks with your sense of space and time, forcing you to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the movie.

The movie wasn't perfect. There were a couple expository scenes where characters reveal stories that explain their actions. I'm more of a fan of "show, don't tell", so I get rather annoyed at scenes where the characters basically tell their life story. But other than this small flaw, I was blown away by Snowpiercer.

Keep in mind that while I don't think the film is any more violent than a Tarantino movie (my threshold for violence is very high, as readers of this blog well know), there are also scenes of what we might call "social violence" (a man is punished in a creative way for rebelling, children are in peril, etc) that could be very uncomfortable for viewers. But if you can stomach watching a film that is a metaphor for how billions of people live today--in filth, poverty, and violence--Snowpiercer is well worth your time and money.

5 out of 5 stars

One- (and some two-) Liners

Movies: The Lego Movie, Neighbors, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 1&2, Tammy


Well, folks. I've gotten so behind on my blog that the only way to get out of this mess is with an entry comprised entirely of short and dirty reviews. Instead of a comprehensive look at each film here, I'm going with an overall impression. Hopefully, I'll be back to full-length reviews soon!


The Lego Movie

I was excited about The Lego Movie mainly because the director/writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were also the creators of the one-season cult TV show Clone High, which was on and off the air much too quickly. I wasn't disappointed--not only does The Lego Movie have the wacky, mildly subversive humor that Clone High had, it's also one of the most uniquely animated films I've ever seen. The Lego Movie is great fun for viewers of all ages.

4.5 out of 5 stars

***

Neighbors

Neighbors is a reasonably funny film, but it doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel. Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne play new parents who are young enough to harbor fantasies that they're still cool and full of energy. Their patience is tested when a fraternity, led by Zac Efron and Dave Franco, moves in next door. The couple enters a love-hate relationship with the frat as peace offerings of weed and booze are exchanged between the two parties and the frat ultimately refuses to be quiet, respectful neighbors. Hijinks ensue and everyone learns a lesson about self-respect and the true meaning of shutting the fuck up so the baby can get some sleep.

3.5 out of 5 stars

***

22 Jump Street

Speaking of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the duo also directed 21 Jump Street and its sequel, 22 Jump Street (side note: as I just typed that sentence, I almost typed "22 Hump Street"...I'm sure the adult film is already out there on the web somewhere).  21 Jump Street was hilarious, and 22 is pretty good but not quite at the same level. Undercover cops Schmidt and Jenko (Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, a surprisingly great comedy team) are back--this time looking to bust the supplier of a drug called "Whyphy" (pronounced "wi-fi") which is making the rounds at a local college. The two go undercover as college kids to gain the trust of students and figure out who is behind Whyphy. Much is made of that fact that this film is a sequel with basically the same plot os the first film. The movie is self-referential and cheeky, which sometimes hits the mark and sometimes just falls flat. Tatum and Hill are worth the price of a ticket as the perfect pair--Hill all anxiety and sarcasm, and Tatum playing the hunky lunkhead.

3.75 out of 5 stars

***

How to Train Your Dragon 1 & 2

Like The Lego Movie, both kids and adults can enjoy the How to Train Your Dragon movies. Both movies take place on an island called Berk. At the beginning of the first film, the vikings of Berk spend their lives fighting the dragons that attempt to steal their sheep and generally cause havoc. Young Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, he of the nasally nerdiness) figures he doesn't have what it takes to be a dragon-killer, which is unfortunate since his father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), is chief of Berk and also a masculine badass. When Hiccup manages to shoot down a rare Night Fury dragon, only to be moved to nurture it back to health, he realizes violence isn't the only way to deal with dragons. He has to overcome massive dragonphobia in order to prove to Berk that vikings and dragons can coexist in harmony.

The second film takes place a few years later, when Hiccup is a dashing (but still nerdy) young man of about 19 or 20 years. On one of his exploratory trips with Toothless, his dragon companion, he learns that there are other vikings out there capturing dragons and using them to form an army. Hiccup and his dad butt heads when Hiccup wants to confront the mysterious man behind the dragon army and Stoick prefers to batten down the hatches and protect the village. How to Train Your Dragon 2 is more intense and scary (for little ones, at least) than the first film, and I found it more entertaining and emotionally satisfying. The sequel takes the trope of a boy becoming a man and expands upon it to include themes about family, sacrifice, and what it means to be a leader--commanding respect versus demanding respect and all that. Both films are a lot of fun, but I thought the sequel was a little "fuller".

How to Train Your Dragon: 4 out of 5 stars


How to Train Your Dragon 2: 4.5 out of 5 stars

***

Tammy

Melissa McCarthy was AWESOME in her breakout film role as Megan in Bridesmaids and she deserves all the opportunities that come with newfound fame, including leading roles. You would think that her role as the titular character in Tammy would be ideal since she and her husband wrote the film, but alas I did not think it was worthy of McCarthy's talent. Tammy is about a down-on-her-luck blue collar woman who goes on a road trip with her alcoholic grandmother (Susan Sarandon) after she finds her husband cheating on her. The two have a series of adventures, including holding up a fast food joint in order to get bail money when grandma ends up in the slammer. Tammy (and grandma) also both find romance on the road. My problem with the movie is the character of Tammy herself. Whereas Megan in Bridesmaids was truly unique in that she was a heavyset, "butch" woman who was also super intelligent, confident in a believable way (you get to hear her backstory and how she went from bullied in high school to rich and successful), and pleasantly weird. Tammy is none of those things. She didn't strike me as smart, she didn't strike me as confident, and she seemed weird in a socially bizarre way. The film is about how Tammy learns to love and forgive herself, but the lessons are spoon fed. Mark Duplass plays her love interest, and I while I really like the fact that a plus-sized woman gets paired with a very cute (but not chiseled) man, the two didn't seem to fit together. Duplass plays too much of the straight (normal) man to Tammy's socially awkward woman. Being plus-sized in Hollywood is still very taboo, and so a film like Tammy, where weight is barely mentioned, is ground-breaking and should be applauded as such. I look forward to the day where men and women of all different sizes fill the big screen without comment.

3 out of 5 stars

Not in Our Stars, but in Ourselves

Movies: The Fault in Our Stars

Annnnd I make my triumphant return to blogger-dom! Readers, I have seen many a film over the past 6 weeks and I plan to write one of those catch-up blog posts where I do mini-reviews of all of them very soon, but I just can't relegate the wonderful film The Fault in Our Stars to a single paragraph in a giant collection of reviews. It deserves better than that.

Like many other adaptations of YA novels into films, I haven't read the actual book The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, although God knows I plan to now. Unlike Divergent, which I saw a month ago, I'm not satisfied to let this story end on the big screen. I want to read the book as well because I'm sure that as meaningful and moving as the movie was, the book will be better. But that's not to say the movie wasn't excellent! I recently saw a click-bait headline that said "The Fault in Our Stars: Manipulative and Crass". Well, fuck me, but I just don't think that journalist and I saw the same movie. The film I saw, while subject to occasional moments of cheesiness, was achingly authentic. Sure, I do take issue with the ethereal beauty of the stars (Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort) which never fades no matter how close to death they get. But despite the elements of Hollywood-ization, the message of the story remains pure: be grateful for the love you have and the time you have. If you find that sentiment manipulative and crass, well, then I can't do nothing for you, son.

The plot of The Fault in Our Stars is simple. Hazel Grace Lancaster (Woodley) is a 17 year old dying of terminal lung cancer. She's not depressed, per se, but she's also not exactly optimistic. Hanging in a limbo of time, Hazel spends her days reading, watching reality shows, and generally lounging around. Her mom urges her to go to a cancer support group for teens so that she can make some friends. There, she meets Augustus Waters (Elgort), a beautiful, arrogant, sunny young man who is a cancer survivor himself attending the group to support a friend of his. Gus takes an immediate liking to Hazel and begins to flirt with her in a gentle, yet firm way that doesn't really take no for an answer. Hazel is attracted to him, but can't get past the idea that she's a "grenade"--a ticking time bomb of sadness that could explode at any minute. Hazel is very aware that when she dies, her parents will be devastated. She doesn't want to extend that devastation to anyone else.

In spite of her attempts to emotionally distance herself from Gus, the two bond over Hazel's favorite book, An Imperial Affliction, by Peter van Houten. Hazel wishes she could go to Amsterdam to meet the author in person, but her family doesn't have the money to get her there. Lucky for her, Gus saved his "kid dying of cancer" wish and uses it to take Hazel and her mom to the European city of vice (and Anne Frank) to meet van Houten.The trip is a turning point in the story for the characters' relationship.

I won't get into what exactly happens during the rest of the film, but it's definitely a three-hankie picture. Hazel and Gus' relationship is interesting since they have to take turns being the strong one for the other. Their differing attitudes toward life change each others perspectives--Gus appears to be the classic optimist, the guy who want to leave a mark on the world, while Hazel sees oblivion as an inevitable reality of life. But when push comes to shove, Hazel is a steadying and comforting presence to Gus when his cavalier attitude about life with cancer crashes up against the reality of his own vulnerabilities and limitations. I liked that both characters were equally strong; there are no "damsel in distress" or "bad boy saved by love" tropes here. There are just two precocious teens forced to grapple with untimely sickness and death who happen to be lucky enough to find love. Am I skeptical that a 17 and 18 year old can fall in "real" love, especially in such a short amount of time? Of course. But time plays by different rules in The Fault in Our Stars: when you might have one year, one month, or one week left to live, you're not going to waste any goddamn time.

The acting in The Fault in Our Stars is awesome. Shailene Woodly and Ansel Elgort capture the contradictory nature of late adolescence--the simultaneous arrogance and vulnerability. One minute you're drinking champagne in an expensive Dutch restaurant, the next you're in the fetal position crying yourself to sleep. Maturity is not a line that you cross on one particular day when you go to college, or get married, or have kids--it's a painful path most folks are on their whole lives. While cancer forces Gus and Hazel to grow up quickly, it doesn't magically make them wise or mature. They're still learning the same lessons every other 17-year-old is learning, in addition to harsher ones about life and death.

Hazel's parents are played by Laura Dern and Sam Trammel (who also plays Sam Merlotte, my favorite character on True Blood). They are relatively relaxed for the parents of a dying teenage girl. But a flashback reveals that when Hazel was 13 years old she was very near death and managed to pull through with the help of some trial drugs. In my interpretation, that near loss let Hazel's parents relax a bit and be thankful for the extra time they were given with their daughter. Her parents' down to earth nature was refreshing in a film this emotionally intense. If they had been hysterical, overprotective parents, I don't think the movie would have been half as good.

Willem Dafoe also does a great job in the role of Peter van Houten, the author Hazel loves who turns out to be not what she (or the audience) expects at all.

I have to admit, I LOVED The Fault in Our Stars. There were a couple scenes that made me cringe a bit (spoiler: when Gus and Hazel kiss in the Anne Frank house and everyone bursts into applause? That is so ridiculous and cliched it belongs on the Internet Meme Database, not in a movie as good as this one). But overall, the movie got to me, dammit! Even though it pretties up cancer a whole lot (the characters have thick hair, beautiful skin, and barely ever throw up or cry), the larger ideas of how everyone's time is limited and love is a precious gift and that dying doesn't mean you have to lose your sense of humor or your anger and snark--those shine through like stars in the night sky.

4.5 out of 5 stars

Split Personality

Movies: Divergent

I have to begin this review by pointing out that I haven't read any of the books in the Divergent trilogy by Veronica Roth. This review is based on the film alone and the information that the film provides.

With that said, I found Divergent to be very entertaining, if a little lacking in the world building department. The film takes place in Chicago, some time in the future. Wars and other disasters have apparently torn the United States apart and those who live in the crumbling city built a wall to keep scary things out. They've also built walls around each other: society is divided into factions based on dominant personality traits: Erudite, Candor, Amity, Dauntless, and Self-abnegation. The roles of each faction are based on their talents--so Candor serve as judges and lawyers, Dauntless as police and protectors, Self-abnegation and governmental leaders (since they're selfless and less corruptible). When teenagers turn 16 they take a test that reveals their aptitude and which faction they should join. Despite test results, they have the freedom to choose any faction they wish to be part of, but once the choice is made they cannot change their minds and pick another faction.

Tris (played by the lovely and talented Shailene Woodley), was born into Self-abnegation. When she takes the test, the results are inconclusive--she tests "positive" for dauntless, erudite, and self-abnegation and is thus "divergent". Being divergent is a big problem. It's the equivalent for testing positive for psychopathy in our society--divergents are seen as freaks, unstable, and uncontrollable. The mistrust of divergents is growing by the time Tris takes her test due to political tensions between Erudite and Self-abnegation. Erudite feels that *they* should be running the government, so they are talking shit about Self-abnegation and trying to smear the faction by claiming they are harboring divergents. So Tris must hide her true identity at all costs--even from family and friends.

When Tris chooses Dauntless at the Choosing Ceremony, she is put through a hellish boot camp of physical and mental training for her role as a protector of society. It's not enough to simply choose Dauntless--new members must complete a series of tests to prove their worthiness, and there are a limited number of spots. If you don't make the cut, you are kicked out and end up "factionless" and on the fringes of society.

Tris' story is compelling and fun if you suspend your disbelief. But my problem was that there was no real explanation as to why this dystopian society thought the best way to deal with social control was to divide people up based on personality traits. If anything, that seems to be a very unstable system with a million cracks in it. Also, when a person chooses a faction, they are not allowed to change their mind, even if it turns out that are unsuited to that faction. Hmmm...seems like a society where people end up where their talents are most useful would be a more smoothly run society, but I guess not! Erudite's power struggle with Self-abnegation makes some sense, but the fact that Erudite's members so easily conform to the communal belief that they would be better governmental leaders than Self-abnegation seems weird because aren't these people supposed to be the critical thinkers of society? Why does the film suggest that intelligent people are also power hungry?

Perhaps the books address these questions more fully, but again I am basing this on the information the film alone provides.

Divergent is a fun movie, but a little on the light side, especially compared to the Hunger Games films, which pack a heftier punch, both emotionally and as social/political commentary. I know films should be judged by their own merits, it's hard not to compare the Divergent to the other enormously popular YA dystopia trilogy and find it lacking.

Overall, Divergent is a good time at the movies--good to see on the big screen with a bucket of popcorn. But it probably isn't the kind of film you'll still be thinking about a week later.

3.5 out of 5 stars