Ryan McNeil
New things become old.
We forget that sometimes, and yet it seems like the simplest point. We find ourselves in relationships that aren’t what we want, or in towns we no longer like, and yearn for something new. New is exciting, enticing, and filled with possibility. Knowing all of that, it’s easy to understand why one would want to trade up from the old to the new, but what we want to do and what we should do shouldn’t always be decided by what will bring us something new.
TAKE THIS WALTZ begins by introducing us to Margot (Michelle Williams). While travelling on business, Margot meets Daniel (Luke Kirby). At first they meet by chance at a tourist attraction; later they meet again when seated close to one another on the same flight back to Toronto. They begin to speak cordially, and decide to share a cab from the airport into the city. As the cab lets them out, Margot reveals that she’s married. Daniel expresses his regret, since unbeknownst to her he actually lives across the street.
As Margot arrives home, we meet her husband Lou (Seth Rogen). Lou is working on a chicken cookbook, and his work on that has him in the kitchen day after day whipping up various types of chicken. His relationship with Margot is loving, but simple. They act like kids together and are very comfortable together. There is no on-going differences between them that cause marital strife, but there also isn’t the spark that they likely had when they first met.
Into this comes Daniel, who slowly gets more and more of Margot’ attention. First she is sitting on her porch at 6am so she can see him leave for work (he pulls a rickshaw for tourists). Next she is walking to the top of the street with him and sharing a coffee. Finally before long, she finds herself completely fascinated by this person.
Day by day we watch Margot try to understand her infatuation with Daniel and her slow withdrawal from Lou. She can’t explain it to herself, or dare breathe a word of it to her closest friend who also happens to be her sister-in-law (Sarah Silverman). It’s her emotional journey alone, and where it’s going to lead her, even she doesn’t seem to fully know.
In many ways, the state of Lou and Margot is heartbreaking. They aren’t very old, haven’t been married terribly long, and clearly get on rather well. However, some ineffable piece has gone missing, and it’s the linchpin for their entire relationship. It’s possible that something about it comes down to familiarity, which is amusingly echoed in Lou’s work with chicken. Chicken is relatively healthy and also rather neutral. There’s all sorts of ways one can cook it, but in the end you’re having chicken again. Few things in life are as predictable as a chicken dinner. That’s Lou. He’s a stand-up guy who is good to Margot and loves her dearly, but he’s a chicken dinner…and no matter how much you love chicken, eventually you’ll find yourself craving something else. This craving is what has Margot wondering what else might be on special at the butcher’s shop.
How TAKE THIS WALTZ lulls us into Margot’s state of mind is through emotional infidelity. It’s a phenomenon that can sneak up on a person without them completely realizing it. One day you’re talking with a stranger on an airplane, the next, you’re getting out of bed an hour early because it means you’ll bump into them on the way to work. It doesn’t feel like cheating, but it comes packaged with a curiosity and intimacy that still betrays the one you love. Sure, the film sets the scene early by having Margot withhold the truth about her marriage during a flight and a cab ride, but I believe that’s forgivable. Where she goes wrong is keeping the conversation going during walks up the street, over coffee, day after day. She isn’t cheating on Lou physically, but her attention is elsewhere which is just as bad. maybe worse.
Margot’s restless feelings work well with the overall look of the film. As I sit here on a thirty-three degree night (ninety-one for my American friends), I feel agitated and uncomfortable. I’m not agitated and uncomfortable enough to step out on my marriage, but I can see the path that would take one down that particular road. Almost all of TAKE THIS WALTZ seems to take place on thirty-three degree days in Toronto. Lou, Margot, and Daniel all seem to permanently glisten with sweat, and none of them have air-conditioning as evidenced by all of the fans on the go. The film’s warm, saturated palette suggest one hot, unsettled summer, which makes it easy to understand how Margot could decide to do what she does.
That said, while I understand why Margot does what she does, I was left uneasy by what she does next. It’s a storytelling decision, and while I would never argue with it, it was a detail that made it hard for me to truly fall for the film.
New things become old, and unless one understands that basic equation, one is doomed to be uncertain, afraid, and wanting. TAKE THIS WALTZ has no interest in telling what do when new things become old, but it wants to be crystal clear on the point that no matter how tempting, bright and shiny something might seem when we find it, it will eventually become worn and rusty. Maybe if the new came with a glimpse at how old it would eventually become, it would seem less enticing. Or maybe we shouldn’t even need the glimpse, maybe by now we should just know better.
I think that is why I love this movie so much. Not only does it come with a lot of disturbing notions which are universal truths, but it comes without blame. You can’t blame Margot too much for how she feels, because that’s how she feels. If you were her best friend that she confided in you probably would end up saying at the end of the conversation “I think you should do what you think is right” and then she would’ve done it.
I guess also (if I’m being completely honest) is it reminded me a bit of my last relationship. She didn’t cheat on me, but the idea of new becoming old. *sigh*
Ahh well… still a great movie. If you need to feel full on depressed I recommend watching BLUE VALENTINE right after this and then you’ll be wondering what the point that damn ring is anyways.
Dude – as I walked away from the theatre on Saturday afternoon I tweeted “Someday I’ll remember not to see films alone where Michelle Williams is restless in a marriage.”
Saw BLUE VALENTINE, and loved it dearly…but dear God!
This weekend a friend pointed out to me that people fall in and out of love for their own reasons, and seldom in reaction to what their current situation gives them. It’s a bitter truth to be reminded of, but certainly one this film underlines.
Least it provided me with pretty pictures of my hometown while it was bumming me out!
It’s too bad this movie has been getting such mixed reviews. I loved it, and you can really tell that this is a very personal story from Sarah Polley. As someone who has, unfortunately, been through a similar experience, I can totally relate to the behavior of these characters. I love that the lesson of “new becomes old” is hammered here, and it cannot be stressed enough. This is one of the real highlights from this year so far, and I am glad to hear you enjoyed it as well, Ryan.
Now that I’ve written about it, I might have to do the rounds and see why the dissenters dislike it. It feels like we’ve all been through something like this at some stage of our life, and because of that it comes packaged with a lot of truth.
Bitter truth – but truth.
I’m hoping more people catch up with it as the summer goes on.
I like the idea and the emotional truth of the story, but the execution isn’t the best. I can see why some people dislike the movie. The dialogue is quite clumsy and unreal. For a movie that tries to go for emotional truth, the dialogue seems fake.
Still I recommend people seeing this, if one can get past certain rough spots and choices, they will probably find this movie quite profound.
The dialogue was actually something I very much enjoyed about the film, it was more a few moments of curious direction towards the end that I found more puzzling.
But like you, I recommend it – doesn’t it make Toronto look purdy?
I think this film is reasonably successful at trying to convey the impossibly difficult notion of why exactly someone can fall in and out of love. Why does the heart tell us to do something when maybe the minds begs we take a more intelligent course? On that alone, the movie is solid.
I think, and this may have me contradict myself, where the film loses points is in Luke Kirby and is character. For one, I don’t care much for that actor, and second, actor aside, I didn’t understand what she saw in him that was enough for her to ditch Lou. Again, that in of itself is part of what the film is about, but Kirby’s character felt like such a loser compared to Lou. I don’t know, I suspect my dislike of Kirby is colouring my opinion at least a little bit.
She saw two things in Daniel that she didn’t see in Lou: He was new, and he was different. Sometimes that’s all it takes, right? It’s not like he has a whole lot going for him: He’s a rickshaw driver for crying out loud, but he offers an escapism that she doesn’t have with Lou.
The sad thing is, that someday another man might come along that offers an escapism from Daniel…then what will she do?
I can appreciate the idea of escapism, but she goes one step further by totally forgoing what she had with Lou. she leaves him entirely. With pure escapism, wouldn’t she have come back?
Sometimes an escape can cede into permanence, and that’s what it did for Margot. It’s not like she was escaping from something that was all that bad, but once free to try something new, she found she wanted to stay free.
Pity in my opinion, but it’s her decision.
Great review, Ryan! You didn’t spoil anything, but you analized and described it so well, that I feel as if I’ve already seen it. I loved the chicken analogy and the very Dr. Seuss first paragraph 😉
I’ve never been compared to Dr. Seuss before, but I’ll take it! Keep an eye out for this movie, I think it’s already making the rounds on-demand.
I’ll definitely try to check it out. Rogen and Williams make an interesting couple.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!
Although I like this one in individual parts (the performance completely, specific scenes) than completely the narrative thrust of Polley’s story does stick with you. For example, the very first shot, and the penultimate shot of Margot baking. It’s a question I “asked” in my review, does the film begin in the present with her and Daniel and then traces us up to the point, or is it Margot in the exactly same situation with Lou at the beginning then Daniel at the end?
Either way it’s unsettling, but if it’s the latter – which I’ve come to think it is – it reveals one of the key flaws of Margot, she’s just continuously restless, in a cutesy kitschy way, but still selfishly. She doesn’t like being caught in “the in-between” and seems doomed to always be on the look out for the new, because every relationship is – essentially the in-between unless it’s beginning or ending.
Which does make for a particularly morally bland take on infidelity somewhat, but still one which is still provocative.
I got the impression that the baking was a mirror of the ending, just because when we see the blurry silhouette of a guy walking towards the window, he seems to svelte to be Lou.
And you’re right – Margot is restless. She left one person who loved her dearly, who’s to say she won’t do it again in a few years. For me, that doesn’t make her a bad character or a bad person…but certainly one who is unobservant and doomed to make the same mistake at least once more.
Not sure if I’d go with “morally bland”…perhaps just “Sadly honest”.
Thanks for reading – apologies for not responding sooner.
I think this is the worst peace of crap i have seen in last 5 years. It’s so obvious what is going to be. There is no magic moment you can relate to character, especially cause of the music which is so annoying! There was nothing, actors were like robots, you cant see chemistry between them. WTF! Sarah calls herself director! go to bloody school and learn how to make proper film. do not copy paste what was already been said milion times before.
Welcome to The Matinee Winston.
I don’t know if it’s the sort of film where we’re supposed to be able to relate to the characters. On paper, it’s the sort of story where we aren’t supposed to connect with the leads: Margot seems to something nice with Lou but is willing to take a match to it because she’s restless. Even if we could relate to that, and don’t know if we’d admit it.
As for not seeing any chemistry, there’s a ton of chemistry happening between Margot and Dan – especially in that diner scene. Heck, just look at their posture when they’re on the ferry and Margot’s eating the watermelon.
It’s not a perfect film, and there’s a lot of people I know who (like you) didn’t care for it. I have to believe though that it’s a visceral reaction instead of a reaction to the film’s execution, or lack thereof.