‘Two Lovers’: One of the Best of 2009
by Mike LongLots of filmmakers set out to make an evocative picture without concern for making an engaging one. Their motivation, I believe, is to do something out of the ordinary that will set them apart as artists. They see storytelling as a conventional skill, subject to, well, convention: Why bother with tension and release and plot? Anybody can do that. I, the artist, will evoke a mood. And that certainly can turn out okay, but most of the time it does not. Most of the time, it results in another volume for the ongoing arthouse library of self-indulgent twaddle.

Two Lovers is a splendid exception, both evoking a mood and telling a story. Not a complicated story, not a Jurassic Park story, and not even a Moody Family Drama story, but a story of familiar feelings in what for most us will be an unfamiliar setting populated by unfamiliar people. Two Lovers is mood-heavy account of a young man’s simultaneous romances with two women. Instead of ending up in bathos–the usual destination–the filmmakers show this young man carrying around his past while he tries to find a happy future. This conflict directs the nature and depth of the romances. In the end we see how happy endings are sometimes the saddest of all.
Joaquin Phoenix plays this fellow, and the character seems entirely likely thanks to two things. The smart script from Ric Menello and James Gray (who also directed) does just what a script is supposed to do: use moments of activity to show–not tell–how this young man feels about himself and life. The introverted delivery boy turns out to be an occasionally smooth ladies’ man, a dancer, a joker, a conversationalist. We wouldn’t have suspected that until we see him become these things, and the discovery is an engaging surprise that also contributes to mood. Dissonance is key: like a real person, this character contains contradiction, and it makes us want to know him.
The other thing that makes the character likely is the “acting skill” (whatever that is—I have never been able to quantify it) of Joaquin Phoenix, who makes us believe we’re seeing someone experience happiness and sadness and frustration—especially frustration—in the appropriate measure at the appropriate time. I don’t know how he does that, and I’ve long believed that success at doing that is more a matter of matching an actor to a role than any particular ability an actor has—but no matter. I noticed his stinginess with smiles, his sudden openness with his feelings, and displays of (to me) real passion, and maybe that’s part of how Phoenix succeeds in making us care. He gives us a young man walled off from some of the life every young man deserves, living with mental illness, recovering from heartbreak, looking for a future and trying hard to find how much he can temper his restlessness and still be satisfied with reality.
Of course, it is that personal connection that always reaches deepest. For those of us past a certain age, to see him work through this matter of settling down is to remember going through it ourselves. If you’re too young to have had to make certain choices (and are the sort to read this kind of review this far), Two Lovers will likely be troubling by its familiarity with your life and the decisions you sense are coming. It’s that good, and there aren’t many pictures as evocative and engaging as this one.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
24 Comments
"art house twaddle." Love it. The phrase, that is, Not the twaddle.
On your word, I'll try it. But I'm really afraid I'll never be able to look at Joaquin Phoenix again without seeing Ben Stiller.
I will only go if you promise Gwynnie gets dumped. She bugs me.
I couldn't agree more. Nice to see an example of Big Hollywood film criticism not underpinned with political agenda.
A character with contradictions? Now that's unusual for this day and age. Sometimes I think everyone in Hollywood reads the same book on screenwriting, and it says:
Under no circumstances should your characters have any contradictions, depth or subtlety. Please choose from one of the four following acceptable character types:
1. The reluctant hero,
2. The over the top bad guy, ie. James Bond villain,
3. The cowardly corporate executive,
4. The hot "ugly duckling" single chick,
5. Other — see set decoration.
Maybe it's just me but unless the denouement for "Two Lovers" involves The Rock standing on Gary Sinse's shoulders to go head to head against a 40-foot tall robot with lasers coming out of its eyes, I'm gonna have to pass on this movie.
"The other thing that makes the character likely is the “acting skill” (whatever that is—I have never been able to quantify it) of Joaquin Phoenix, who makes us believe we’re seeing someone experience happiness and sadness and frustration—especially frustration—in the appropriate measure at the appropriate time."
I've always wondered about this. It would seem that this role would in some regards mimic Joaquin Phoenix's life. Almost a personal portrayal of oneself vs. creating and acting as someone that is counter to his own personality.
Do actors act or merely portray themselves?
I love looking at Gwyneth and she is sadly, Paltow's daughter. no matter. Phoenix is a wonderful actor. I would like to see this movee.
You had me till the pic of Gwyneth Paltrow. I wouldn't waste my time.
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
if only Hollywood produce more of same.
I'm glad you like your reviews politics-free. I try to write about what I like and tell you why I like it. I happen to believe that doing so without regard to politics is a pretty rare thing–just try to find for a reviewer who doesn't blast away ad hominem at people who hold opinions he doesn't like. Takes guts to say what you like without apology. Most folks eventually give in to the crowd. I'm tryin' not to. Stay tuned.
I think it's a really big mistake to discount the worth of great acting. The first time I became aware of him was in that movie with Nicole Kidman, "To Die For". He had the role of a subnormal student, and he did it so well! He just is a Great Actor. Dare I bring up Alec Baldwin… so good in "State and Main"; and George Clooney, who should stick to comedy and shut up about politics. The trouble with actors is that , today, they think they should have Political Opinions. I think we would all be happier if they would just shut up and do their job!
Gwyneth Paltrow ruins it for me. First she latches on to (a then, up and coming Brad Pitt). Then, after a short test drive of Ben Affleck (apparently who's star wasn't big enough), she grabs this guy from Coldplay (just as they hit it big).
I'll always see her as nothing more than a scheming, manipulative, social climbing woman. Her parent's really did a number on her. Regular guys need not apply (except in the movies) Yuk!
And unless I'm reading too much into it, and this latest persona is an elaborate goof, I see Joaquin going down the same tragic path that River trod.
I would definitely see this if it wasn't for Paltrow being in it. I'll have to pass.
If I understood what it took to act, maybe I could get on board with you. Problem is, I see a lot of people (especially comedians) walk in cold and do it just as well as anybody who has been to acting school. That tells me it is more intuition than training, and common intuition at that. I'm willing to be found wrong on this, just haven't heard the argument. Maybe you're the one to make it!
What about Se7en? That has a happy ending if you're a Paltrow hater.
I would have to agree with you and it's unfortunate.
Don't get me wrong I think there are some/few actors who can portray characters that are not intuitive. Kevin Spacey, Val Kilmer are a couple of actors who can portray differing character ideologies.
I think it's merely a paradox of sorts, type caste vs actual ability. Each plays an amazing role in the scheme of things, but I think that the type caste artists aren't actually acting but merely being themselves. That's what bothers me about the… uppity all knowing movie star and their great creative talent. I don't always think that it's awesome creativity but merely relying on natural experience. I see it as an easy cop out that almost anyone could do.
Thanks for the kind words. And I agree with your other comments on this picture, esp re the lighting (I hadn't thought much about it until you wrote that, and you're right) and of course the presence of the preternaturally beautiful Isabella Roselini. I'd be interested in your comments at length about the skill of acting; I gather you have an opinion on that that I might find enlightening, given my present philistinism on the subject.
I tihnk you're getting at the heart of it right here, you and Vince both.
I assume that by "inside out" you mean feelings beget action, and by "outside in" you mean the actions are intellectually motivated, not driven by assumed feelings? (something like that)
I have seen it and I hated it for lots of reasons. Never even got down to the acting. I rarely write about acting cos I don't feel that commenting on acting is much more than random opinion… but I am shifting in that view.
[...] Reviews: Mike Long at Big Hollywood Kyle Smith Christian Toto movieguide.org Christian [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.