2 Obscure Movies

I watched two movies that apparently no one else in the world has watched. One was Margot at the Wedding and the other was Rachel Getting Married. They sound similar, and they are. Same setting (a wedding), same context (crazy relative shows up, causes a stir), same characters (two sisters in the center, with parents, friends, etc in the fray).

The strange thing about these movies is that there was no resolution. No characters grew, no real obstacles were overcome. They did get through the wedding, and a lot of brutally juicy arguments and betrayals took place. But I think normal viewers of these films have that familiar "that's it?" feeling when the credits roll.

What were these movies about? Should I feel ashamed if I found the in-your-face multiculturalism of Rachel disconcerting? Am I a impolitic for thinking that it was preachy? For pete's sake. The wedding sequence and the frequent music montages were so long and overt, as if the director's point was to stuff as many cultures in your face as possible in five minutes. The eschewing of any hint of tradition, the uttermost free form in the vows (consisting essentially of each thanking the other for marrying them).

Religion figured prominently. I guess the white family was Hindu (in Rachel). What else could they be? And the black family (his family) was Universalist with a haunting of some gospel past thrown in.

I will say the acting was good, and this went a long way toward making the movies watchable. I actually watched Rachel twice, partly to see Hathaway, partly to try and figure it out. Anne Hathaway was fabulous as the addict sister fresh out of rehab. But Nicole Kidman in Margot was, I dont know, gross. Blame it on the writer, because she is beautiful and talented. Co-star Jack Black is funny but a poor actor. And other co-star Jennifer Jason Leigh can turn it on when needed.

Both movies left me disturbed and re-entering earth's orbit after a very bumpy ride. I just want to say the people were stupid. I want to complain, What was the point? Yes, we see a human interaction that was very authentic. It showed brokenness and realistic yucky human crap that gets sprayed all over some people in Connecticut. But an essential element was missing that makes it a "story", I dont know, something like resolution, development, dare I say redemption.

Its not enough to just portray a messed up family's experience. You have to do something with it. I suspect that some artsy-fartsy impetus is behind both films, some self-authenticating "if you dont get it then it is your problem, facist" attitude. As if the postmodern artiste' had disabused themselves of the obligation to suggest anything like meaning, resolution, growth or beauty in their characters.

You idiots writing these movies, look. You are either 1) laziness masquerading as angst or 2) so anemic in your view of the beauty of human experience that all you see is the dark side, and fortunately for you, it sells because viewers love a good cat fight. The artistic community you emerge from may be bold in its impluse to spread our faces with tar, but it is empty. Wake up and rediscover meaning. It is not passe.