Rarely has movie love been handled with both the dreamy indulgence and the cynicism that James Grey pulls off in Two Lovers. It’s a pity that the film, which premiered nine months ago at Cannes and is now rolling out on VOD and in theaters via Magnolia, has been pegged in time as the allegedly final film of star Joaquin Phoenix. In this meditation on class passing and infinite adolescence, set mainly in Brighton Beach with a few giddy sojourns to Manhattan, Grey creates a mood pocket, as it were, that’s distinctly out of time. Working off a series of contrasts that’s very true to its New York setting, Two Lovers is implicitly concerned with the way romantic relationships give us an opportunity to slide back and forth across class lines; if that motion temporarily offers the potential for an erasal of personal history, our ultimate stations in life can’t be escaped.
Gwyneth Paltrow and Phoenix both play adults who allow older men to pay their rent. For Paltrow, it’s a stock slimeball married guy who keeps her Michelle, an aging if well-bred bad girl, stashed in an apartment in The Old Neighborhood –– part easy alibi (his mama lives nearby), part obvious fetishistic class regression/emotional slumming (his mama lives near by). In Phoenix’s case, the older man is his father, an Israeli-born dry cleaner who wants to ensure his own comfortable retirement by making sure his wannabe photographer son Leonard hooks up with Sandra Cohen (Vinessa Shaw), the daughter of a business partner. Too bad Leonard is constantly running off to answer text messages from Michelle, whose bought-and-paid-for pad is visible from his childhood window. He can gaze lovingly, creepily at his shiksa goddess’ blonde head floating behind a barred window across a courtyard while his too-close mom (Isabella Rossellini) spies on her son from just outside his bedroom door.
Leonard begins relationships with both women simultaneously, and much of the film is devoted to the ways in which he immerses himself in the pleasures offered by one to ameliorate the disappointments of the other. The dry cleaner’s daughter says she wants to “take care” of Phoenix, but she probably shouldn’t––at worst unstable and immature and at best just something of a bore, he’s a 30 year-old boy who has moved back in with the ‘rents after a failed engagement and multiple suicide attempts. In turn, Paltrow (more impressive than she has been in years cast against type as a cannily manipulative roiling ball of need) exploits Leonard’s proximity (emotional, physical) as a salve for the constant pain wrought by her married boyfriend’s distance and seeming indifference.
A film about emotional extremes, Two Lovers plays out in visual extremes. Grey very consciously color codes his spaces to correspond to his narrative’s alternating moods. All grey and green and drained of light during the narrative’s darkest points, Two Lovers shifts into chromatic overdrive when its bi-polar protagonist is closest to manic oblivion. A crucial clutch scene that might under other circumstances seem like a romantic high is marked as anything but by Grey’s choice of palette: there’s almost no color on the screen beyond the white-gold wisps of Paltrow’s windblown hair dusting the frame. Since this scene comes after a pair of less-ambiguous low moments (a suicide attempt, a miscarriage), all rendered in the same lightless matte, we know to read what the characters see as a moment of unexpected ecstasy, as in all actuality a third flirtation with death. It’s horribly bleak. It’s also beautiful.
The film’s tone can be somewhat contradictory, and it’s hard to say whether Grey is saying that his obviously troubled protagonist’s ability to seduce two gorgeous women (and, most problematically, that he stuns both ladies into a state of something like love via swift administration of his dick) makes for comedy or tragedy. Maybe both: Phoenix himself, starting at the moment of seduction and carrying through to the end of each such scene, seems like he’s playing a completely different person. It’s a dramatization of the transformative nature of sexual attraction.
In the film’s second to last shot, Phoenix locks a single, tortured eye on the camera from behind the embrace of the woman who he’s just, by default, given a diamond ring. It’s a single shot that undercuts any possibility that this apparent traditional romantic happy ending is in fact what it seems. It would be difficult to look at that image and still believe that anyone in this movie has actually been in “real” love since they stepped on screen, to not feel a cynical, momentary jolt that romantic love itself is never really more than a collision of circumstance and impulse, a way of taking care of a need via the most readily available means. It’s a testament to the childish madness of infatuation, and maybe even true love’s impossibility. Happy Valentines!
This review is a rethink of some thoughts I posted after seeing Two Lovers for the first time at Cannes; a second viewing this week outside of the pressure and exhaustion of the film festival cleared up some of my questions about the film. Sometimes that happens!
I’m reposting this from THND, since there’s a brewing war about Isabella’s on-and-off-screen sensuality in their comments section, hence, no discussion space to dig deeper behind this film’s laminated veneer of “old style posing” as some sort of heart-felt innovation in filmmaking.
I absolutely enjoyed the film, but not for its earnest portrayal of anything remotely naturalistic or even as a fatalistic cautionary tale. Of course, he was going to end up with Vinessa Shaw’s character. Rounding up the current reviews from critics in the NY area, no one has yet to mention the film’s absurd moments of pure awkwardness, such as Gwyneth Paltrow’s laughable “Can You See Me Now?” nipplegate scandal across the hall from Leonard. Or when the titular two lovers meet on the train, and she happens to suggest text messaging as if it was just introduced this past year. The film is not too far away from the emotionalhonesty of HE’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU, but of course, who would vouch for that film when such a candidly “solemn” study of doomed romance in New York seems to be an easier, less commercial candidate for Valentine praise? James Gray gives us, on one hand, the antiquated quality of an opera duet played with bombastic self-importance during a lush love scene, while doling out those recognizable tropes of the reviled rom-com genre. Exhibit A: a wonderful nightclub sequence of infantile desperation and unexpected talent performed by Joaquin Phoenix through breakdancing. Enough said.
I’m shocked that this movie has received such positive reviews. It plods along at a snail’s pace, and if I had seen it on television instead of the theater, I absolutely would have turned it off within the first 30 minutes. It’s without a doubt the worst movie I’ve paid to see in a theater in several years. It’s not that the acting is bad; it’s that the story is unrealistic and, well, just plain boring.
Leonard, who seemed to me like a sixth-grade boy in a man’s body, has mental health issues. Michelle is a complete emotional mess, manipulative in her neediness. Sandra, who seems on the face of it to be the only one of the three who has it together, is for some reason desperate enough to go for…Leonard. Before Leonard and Sandra kiss for the first time, Sandra mumbles something about how “a lot of guys…” What? Aren’t attracted to her? Don’t want to date a Jewish woman? Huh? A major weakness of the plot, in my opinion, is why Sandra, a beautiful young woman with good social skills, could possibly be attracted to Leonard. Sandra’s character is never really developed enough that the viewer can understand why this might be. It mostly focuses on Leonard pursuing Michelle, even though in the first part of the move, Michelle stands up Leonard about as often as Leonard stands up Sandra. Sandra seems fairly normal; she looks unhappy when Leonard is preoccupied or agitated. So why is she interested in him? She says she wants to “take care” of Leonard, but that’s about all the movie offers by way of explaining why she’d go for a guy like Leonard.
I’ll remember this movie not because I enjoyed it, but because of how much I did not enjoy it.
James Grey (real name Jamison Grella) is a crew member, usually a gaffer and grip who dabbles in cinematography. He is by no means a director. Unfortunately he proved this by stuffing up a great story that Blind Freddy could’ve directed and still made a profit.
Kicking the cat because the car won’t start means blaming someone else for your failures, and blaming Joaquin for his incompetence is just an excuse. The producers should’ve got a bona fide director, and the investors should not have greenlighted the funding untill they got one.
Hi. My name is Jamison Grella (sometimes credited as James Grey). For internet inept, such as Mr. Wilde here, let me clarify something. I did not direct “Two Lovers.” However, having not seen the movie, I would like to address the blatant classism that Mr. Wilde here has displayed. I do not think it is incalculable for someone who starts as a crew member to make the leap to the big chair. Hell, look at Soderbergh (he started in the Camera Dept.).
So, a word to the wise, Mr. Wilde. Learn how to do research. It will prevent you from making….embarrassing assumptions.
don’t know what to say what to do cept post this just like you…
grey? grella? too bad i thought jamie had lent this film his detached stamp but then i’m biased. after actually seeing wolves i thought the future held much promise for this 28 yr old introspective, lest i say, genius? but then again i’m biased… now 2 lovers traisps across the screen and the somber tones make you wonder whose grey is casting shadows