Margot at the Wedding (2007)
Dir. Noah Baumbach
Written by Noah Baumbach
Produced by Scott Rudin Productions
Distributed by Paramount Vantage
Genre: Black Comedy / Drama
The film follows the title character, Margot (Nicole Kidman in one of her best roles) and her androgynous son Claude as they travel to Long Island to visit Margot’s sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) who is getting married. Once in Long Island, they meet Malcolm (Jack Black), the loser Pauline is to marry. The film follows the days prior to the wedding and analyzes the problems of the highly dysfunctional family. Margot is going through a divorce, which is quite self-explanatory considering she has an obvious passive-aggressive disorder, particularly with her son. Claude, clearly brought up in a horrible family environment, is trying to grow into teenagehood with huge amounts of emotional baggage such as an Oedipus complex, exacerbated by Margot’s treatment of him. Claude always wants to please his mother and Margot always wants Claude to stay young (Margot bleaches Claude’s mustache and prevents him from wearing deodorant. The theme of Claude wanting to grow up is shown when he tells his mother that he masturbated the previous night.) Pauline is a divorced mother whose lack of self-confidence forces to marry someone clearly beneath her. In addition to this, she clashes with her sister constantly. They have a pretty sick relationship. Malcolm is a failed artist with a strong resentment to people who achieved fame and is therefore unemployed. He also “made out” with the family’s nanny. (The use of the very childish term “make out” shows the instability and immaturity of Malcolm). The film continues unveiling the problems of this family until Pauline tells Margot she is pregnant. Margot immediately tells Claude (who sometimes feels more like Margot’s husband than her son) and the secret is uncovered. Malcolm finds out and tension breaks out from Pauline’s side (exacerbated by Margot’s attitude) and the wedding is cancelled. The sisters and their offspring escape to a hotel where the drama continues, until Margot and Claude go back to Margot’s husband. It is a very complicated film and doesn’t have a single likable character!
The first visual element that jumps to the viewer’s eyes is that about 90% of the film is handheld. This is done to convey the naturalistic feeling of the film and the realism, as well as to show that the family is being shown without a single veil: just as they are. Most of the film is also shot with natural light; further showing Baumach’s naturalistic style. In addition to this, most of the shots of the character of Margot are done as low angles, implying the sense of superiority Margot has over the rest of the characters. Close-ups are used a lot in this movie, in order for the viewer to “get into the minds” of the complicated characters. However, the most close-ups are used for the character of Margot, as a mean of showing her role as the “mastermind” of the family.
Margot at the Wedding is a great example of the Black Comedy genre, and the film constantly walks on top of the fence that divides Black Comedy and Drama. The viewer finds some moments hilarious, some moments gruesome, and a handful of them: both hilarious and gruesome. Margot at the Wedding is in keeping with the recent dysfunctional family dramedies, such as American Beauty (1999) and The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). However, I believe that Margot at the Wedding is a lot more gruesome than these two films. The films I related the most to Margot at the Wedding are Todd Solondz’s films: Happiness (1998), Welcome to the Dollhouse (1986) and the lesser Palindromes (2004). Solondz’s films and Margot at the Wedding play with this extremely black humor and grotesque, yet human characters. Another clear comparison with Margot at the Wedding is Baumach’s previous film “The Squid and the Whale” (2005). However, I’d just like to point out that I hated “The Squid and the Whale” and loved “Margot at the Wedding”. This film is a very painful film to watch, but is one of the best character studies of the decade. (Even if the critics don’t seem to agree…)
The first visual element that jumps to the viewer’s eyes is that about 90% of the film is handheld. This is done to convey the naturalistic feeling of the film and the realism, as well as to show that the family is being shown without a single veil: just as they are. Most of the film is also shot with natural light; further showing Baumach’s naturalistic style. In addition to this, most of the shots of the character of Margot are done as low angles, implying the sense of superiority Margot has over the rest of the characters. Close-ups are used a lot in this movie, in order for the viewer to “get into the minds” of the complicated characters. However, the most close-ups are used for the character of Margot, as a mean of showing her role as the “mastermind” of the family.
Margot at the Wedding is a great example of the Black Comedy genre, and the film constantly walks on top of the fence that divides Black Comedy and Drama. The viewer finds some moments hilarious, some moments gruesome, and a handful of them: both hilarious and gruesome. Margot at the Wedding is in keeping with the recent dysfunctional family dramedies, such as American Beauty (1999) and The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). However, I believe that Margot at the Wedding is a lot more gruesome than these two films. The films I related the most to Margot at the Wedding are Todd Solondz’s films: Happiness (1998), Welcome to the Dollhouse (1986) and the lesser Palindromes (2004). Solondz’s films and Margot at the Wedding play with this extremely black humor and grotesque, yet human characters. Another clear comparison with Margot at the Wedding is Baumach’s previous film “The Squid and the Whale” (2005). However, I’d just like to point out that I hated “The Squid and the Whale” and loved “Margot at the Wedding”. This film is a very painful film to watch, but is one of the best character studies of the decade. (Even if the critics don’t seem to agree…)
I agree, great character study. It's a shame the critics didn't like it, though. I thought it was really raw and real. And Nicole Kidman was excellent, one of her best performances, if not the best.
ResponderEliminar