The cool thing about writing as part of a community is meeting people who have similar tastes to your own. Eventually, you meet someone who’s tastes overlap so much that they’re more or less your filmgoing soulmate. For me that bromance is currently raging with Simon Columb.

Though even in the most sound of relationships, an entity will come along that will divide the house. Just such a film arrived in the form of THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU. So rather than relegate the back-and-forth to the comments section, i thought I’d push the conversation further and post it hear for you fine readers to ponder. (FAIR WARNING – Spoilers Abound)

RM: I get the impression that I liked this more than you.

SC: For certain. It simplified an exceptionally fascinating philosophical point. On the one level, it is huge – he will be president, she will be a great dancer – on another level is base-romance, love-at-first-sight. Yes, events-lead-to-bigger-things (like yourself and Lady Hatter) but in reality, it is the connection that is established and built upon that makes a strong relationship – not the obsession one would have at first glance.

Matt Damon did fall ‘at first sight’ for Blunt, as did she for him. That is a very obvious, simple starting point. Within the first ten-minutes the question of whether they are meant to be together is answered and, lets be honest, there was little doubt that it wouldn’t work out for them.

RM: You’re right, relationships are built on much more than just instant chemistry. But the way this film emphasizes the little, seemingly inane occurrences is rather intriguing.

For example, you’re in London – a city of seven million people. You probably run across the same people day in and day out, not just at work…but because you all run a similar routine (you’re walking out the door at the same time, taking the same train schedule, etc). Think about all of those people you never encounter, who you might if you left ten minutes earlier.

One of them could be quietly looking to hire an artist in residence that fits your profile! Or one of them could be the woman of your dreams. Keep on your normal routine, you never even meet (let alone find out if you work well together)…have one morning where you decide to get an early start and all of a sudden you’re striking up a conversation because you notice someone reading a rare book you like.


SC: It’s a little bit too perfect in this film. In reality, no one is perfect. Relationships are fragile and those small details can be beneficial or destructive. In THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, Matt Damon is Good, that is clear. Emily Blunt is Good. Mackie is trying to be good. The entire Adjustment team are neither good or bad – they are just following orders. But it is clear that we are sad for how their relationship is expected to turn out.

But that’s the rub, we want them to get together. I think it could have been much more challenging if you saw much more conflict in that dynamic.

RM: But I thought that the complexity was there in as much as it needs to be. It’s not that the Bureau are simply following orders, they are following orders for a greater good. They pull Dave aside and specifically tell him “What we are doing serves a higher purpose. No, you cannot have what you want in this instance, but it is because we are pushing you towards something we believe you want even more”. Put that sort of choice to anybody and watch what they do.

SC: But how we simply have to accept it is a ‘greater good’. What is good? What is bad? Norris is going to make a change by being President – fine. But how? We have to place alot of trust – as does Norris – about what is ‘Good’. Elise will become a ‘highly successful’ dancer… in an unhappy relationship? That doesn’t seem very good. But in the simplicity of the story presented we simply accept ‘tough choice’. Unfortunately, there is no tension at all when the foundations of the relationship are not solid.

RM: Let me answer your question with a question: Why does every detail need to be spelled out? If someone came to you and said “Do what we say, we assure you that you will become Prime Minister and do great things” are you gonna look at them and ask “What great things?” No – it will be very persuasive just as it is. Remember of course that he’s already a politician so this is feasible.

Nobody gets it all in life – there’s always a sacrifice be it personal, professional, financial, etc. For an artist like Elise, telling her that she will achieve great things artistically, but at a steep personal cost – I’d wager she’d take it. Much of the greatest art in history has come from artists that were personally unhappy.

SC: Fair point, but the fact that you would simply reckon she’d prefer it simply says how much is reliant on ‘just going with’ the plot. Where is the tension? I want to see her see that decision, I want to see the challenge this is, I want to see the [potential] hatred she may see in Norris for ‘holding her back’.

Relationships often break down because someone is holding them back from something they love – but apparently these two are ‘so in love’ that won’t happen. I know people who appear to be content at this point in their lives about what they have achieved – but you know that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, the person will resent their partner for stopping them from doing something. The point being that you can’t simplify their entire life into ‘she wants to be an artist’ VS ‘loving relationship with Matt Damon’. There are so many other possibilities and outcomes.

On another note, The Bureau have alot of inconsistencies. What do we mean by ‘earlier versions of the plan’ – like the first six versions of the matrix? There is nowhere near enough background to attach these very vague catch-all answers to. What about the small scale of New York – all these doorways and hiding places in ONE city??? The emotions of Anthony Mackie – the ONLY angel who has acted on his emotions??? Huge inconsistencies.

RM:The “earlier versions” point to prior maps of The Plan that had been altered by ripples. The job of the bureau is to keep the plan on track while making as little ripples as possible – not “no ripples at all”. Odds are, while trying to keep the whole thing on track, they managed to throw a wrench into Norris and Elise meeting.

As for the plausibility of all these doorways and hiding places in one city, I have to smile and ask you “Ever been to New York?”

Howard might be the first agent to act on his emotions, but that’s not to say that others haven’t had them.

Here’s the thing though mate – you call these inconsistencies, and I call them elements of a fantastical tale that you just didn’t buy. Perhaps that could be why I liked it more than you did – as I declared in my review, the film presents to us a hypothesis of faith…and the amount you enjoy the film comes down to the amount you believe in the hypothesis.

It’s almost as if you think Jack & The Beanstalk is inconsistent because for the size of the cow he was trading, he shouldn’t have been given that many beans.

SC: Every detail doesn’t need to be spelled out, fair point. But having said that, you should at least feel like those details don’t matter. When you are dealing with such a huge argument, you need to factor these thoughts in.

RM:I think I just noticed something – It feels as though I took what we were presented and just filled in the gaps for myself…whereas you wanted a few more of those gaps to be played out on the screen.

Fair point?

SC: Yeah, I think that’s true. But I would argue that when you are dealing with such a theme, I expect the filmmakers to explore the themes more.

If you want a fate vs free-will romance, then present the romance and build a quick context around it – think of SLIDING DOORS. There was nothing necessarily magical about that film, just an exploration of “what if…” by showing two stories play out alongside each other and seeing the outcome. THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU confuses us with talk of alternate realities, freezing time, hats-to-transport, the ‘chairman’, the ‘re calibrator’ and backs all of this up with … nothin’.

Why not simply show one guy who doesn’t work for a ‘bureau’ or anything, but who could potentially be an angel miss his adjusting and that one guy, racing to try and catch it up? Lets be honest, the ‘story’ I present would be alot more clearer a romance and, therefore, would be marketed as such, and therefore would only make rom-com money … opposed to potentially block-busting box-office smashes which is more important to the studios.

RM: But it’s not like this film was posing as a prestige picture. It was more of a popcorn film with a bit more brains than usual.
Does such a picture really have to paint with such detail?

SC: As I said, it pretends it does have detail: alternate realities, freezing time, hats-to-transport, the ‘chairman’, the ‘re calibrator’, etc, etc.

If (doesn’t want to elaborate on any of them) – why even mention these things! I refer you to my idea – LOVE ADJUSTEMENT (my new title for the film) whereby none of those things (alternate realities, freezing time, hats-to-transport, the ‘chairman’, the ‘re calibrator’, etc, etc.) exist. It is simply an angel sent from God (why even flower it with this chairmen rubbish) to stop a couple getting together. End of.

Why do we need Slattery as Mackies boss? Why do we need Thompson as ‘The Hammer’? It is primarily about Damon and Blunt.

As for it posing as a prestige picture – I’ll bet the initial expectation was otherwise. Even the posters look like Jason Bourne films – the couple ‘running’ away from agents. It is a popcorn film, but it hasn’t got ‘brains’. It pretends it does but, deep down, its just a run-of-the-mill romance … completed badly.

RM: I see what you’re saying, but there’s where I disagree. I think that when it comes to a fantasy story like this, that every answer will only lead to another question…and that the only way to paint such a picture is to intentionally leave gaps for the audience to fill in.

As for it posing as a prestige picture, I mean to say that it didn’t hold itself up as an Oscar contender or one that we’ll be talking about as one of the year’s best (For what it’s worth, I don’t see the Bourne films as prestige pictures either).

SC: Enough of this playing defence. What about you? Do you think the marketing is an accurate reflection of the story?

RM:The marketing was slightly misleading as it put more emphasis on the action than it did on the relationship, there’s no disputing that. But that prompts two thoughts for me.

First of all is that one should only put so much stock in how a film is marketed, as they can often be marketed misleadingly. I try to come into each film as though somebody handed me a ticket to see it and said “Here – don’t ask, just watch”. Further, the marketing of the film is what lead to me being pleasantly surprised, since I thought I was in for some sort of metaphysical chase as opposed to watching two people struggle with whether what they felt for each other was worth holding on to.

SC: I on the other hand think the marketing was semi-accurate – it was a little muddled. Didn’t know what it was – romance or action? Here lies the problem I have with the film. It didn’t know what it was.

Ironically, I thought the relationship worked (though what was with Blunt and her dunking-of-phone in his coffee – who does that?) … but alas, this is not all there is to the film. Nothing else was strong enough and, as you have guessed, the lack of context completely annoyed me.

I’m as up for a romance as much as the next guy, but this was a romance reduced to its basic level – boy meets girl, they fall in love. What about ‘Adrian’, her ‘serious’ ex who she left, virtually at the altar, because of a complete chance encounter with someone who, as a politician, should’ve set some alarm bells ringing. I refer back to SLIDING DOORS, a film whereby the ex-boyfriend is not only completely connected to the story, but so-much-so, we actually sympathise with him a little. Its nowhere near as simple as boy-meets-girl-and-they-fall-in-love.

What about execution? Do you think that your connection to THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is more about philosophical points raised rather than execution of the story?

RM:I believed the execution was “good enough”. The direction is fine, editing fine, photography fine, and production values fine. There was no part of its technical execution that left me feeling wanting. The chemistry between Blunt & Damon is top-notch and goes above & beyond “fine” so that’s a big plus. As I said in my review, I think much of one’s enjoyment of the film comes down to how much they buy the concept ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is trying to sell. I bought it, thus I enjoyed it.

Ultimately, I think the difference between our takes on the film is that I took what it presented and said “Right, I follow” and you had more of a nagging “Wait! What about…?”

I think I have just about everything to do the post, so what would you say is your final word on ADJUSTMENT BUREAU?

SC: My final word is that you need to watch SLIDING DOORS.