That's a fair point and one I agree with. However, I'd ask where that specific character trait comes from? There's no hint of it during the early part of the story. Maybe he drinks because his wife refuses to have sex with him? Maybe he drinks because he knows his wife is falling out of love with him. The point is, he drinks for a reason, and while that's certainly his fault, alcoholism almost always is rooted in an issue someone is either trying to deal with and can't, or is too cowardly to deal with at all. Dean drinks for a reason, and it's likely is has something to do with his home life. When you're married that's an "us" problem, and I didn't see Cindy trying to do too much to help him out. She's as cold and distant as he is immature and aimless.



Jesus Christ, guys. This is almost as depressing as the movie. Firefly sounds like Aristotle in the ways he views acts of kindness. That's some cynical shit, my man. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with feeling good about doing something nice for another person. Why shouldn't you? Aristotle, and apparently firefly, thinks that somehow taints the act. That's poppycock. By that logic it's impossible to do anything nice for anyone.

While Dean is anything but normal or typical, I don't think that scene serves to condemn Dean. It certainly isn't selfish of him. While he may be odd, and may be unable to read people, an act of kindness is still an act of kindness. It does it out of pure niceness, and that's admirable, regardless of how odd it is. If the motivation is pure, it can't be seen as selfish. He's a pleaser and wants to be liked. I think that's where this sort of act comes from. It helps to set up and understand why he's willing to jump headfirst into marriage with a girl he hardly knows because she's preggo.



Are you mocking us for having a womanly book club discussion? Pray tell, sir, what other concerns/issues/readings of the film would you like to discuss? I only ask that halfway sarcastically because I'd like to expand the discussion some too.

How about the structure of the film? What do you guys make of telling their story with what is almost 2 separate narratives? The only thing the same are the characters. Just about everything else is different, no?

I've seen "5x2". There are some similarities, but they're mostly superficial. When it comes down to it, they're very different.

Nothing of the sort as the movie invites some armchair psychology. Firefly talked about the nice use of digital to bring some necessary rawness to the film and there was also the dramatotechnical detail of leaving the, for lack of a better term, "Present Tense" scenes unscored.

Or we could go a different route and talk about some of the more questionable scenes. If there were, indeed, questionable scenes. Was it important to know how many sex partners Cindy had? Did we need to learn this in a clinical setting? Maybe not. Since I already jumped the Cassavetes train I'll spoiler-tag this next little thing.


But there you go. A co-worker of mine said it was one of the worst movies she's ever seen.

I noticed the scoring too. I liked that choice a lot. For one, it works in a pratical sense to help the audience differentiate between the two time periods. On an artistic level, it works by creating a different atmosphere for each section. The scored section is about the two falling for each other. It's the "romantic" part of this film. The second part is unscored, and unromanticized, because, really, what's there to celebrate? I use romantic here generously, as even the romance in this particular film is anything but standard or happy.



I think the number of sexual partners Cindy had is absolutely essential information. Warning! More armchair psychology coming! Given what we know about Cindy's home life, the fact that she's had twenty-five sexual partners at such a young age paints her as someone who has a need for love. She's young, and many young girls equate sex with love, so such a high number only serves to enforce that thought. It helps gives a context to why she rushes into marriage so quickly with Dean. He's willing to give the love and support she so needs at the moment. It's character development organically within the story. That's a question she would certainly be asked in that clinical setting. Now, the need for that scene is fair to question, like your wife did, but I'm with you. The movie is so concerned with showing us the emotions of these characters, that, like you said, for Cindy to just claim "I changed my mind" would feel inauthentic. The movie portrays her as someone who has difficulty dealing with her emotions, so, to me, it makes sense for her to wait until the last possible moment to make that decision.

As for the beating, I questioned that myself. The movie does a nice job of covering it up a bit by contrasting it with Dean's violence shortly after. It goes with the overarching issue of dealing with maturity. Bobby's beating of Dean is simple angry youth and hurt pride. Dean's assualt on Cindy's boss comes from a completely different place of stress and frustration. That isn't to say Dean's act of violence is condoned, but it comes from a place I can understand and even feel a slight bit of sympathy towards. What recourse does he have left? His wife avoids him and denies him at every turn. She won't let him get his emotions out, and, at some point, they're going to come out one way or another. Bobby is just a young punk kid with a young punk kid's mentality. Hopefully, for his, and his future partners', sake he grows out of that (although asking Cindy if she stays faithful is not a good sign). The film also does a good job, with minimal time, of making the beating natural for someone like Bobby. That's who he is. The guy who will beat you up if you steal his girl...even if you didn't know she was his girl. Again, he's got an immature mentality. That said, in theory the beating does seem like a bit of a TV movie of the week plot point. I think the film handles it pretty well, but I don't have any big qualms about someone finding it melodramatic.



I think the film is so honest with its emotions that some people will be turned off by that. If someone made that claim I'd try to dig a little deeper and ask what about the movie made them hate it so much. However, in my experience, most folks will just make that claim and carry on with their lives. I'm not saying that your co-worker is that sort of person, just that that's the norm for me when trying to talk analytically about particular films. Hence, me frequenting the Reelviews forum.

A nicer guy than me would have asked "What didn't you like about it?" but, as I view "niceness" as a relatively uninteresting character quality in and of itself, I went about my business. Although there are some people, and I'm sure you work with them just like everybody works with them, that could come in and say "My house burned down last night!" and you'd respond with "Ouch. Sounds like that'd be hot. Hot. I'd like some coffee, going to have some..."

I don't know what it'd take for me to say Blue Valentine is near-perfect or whatever 4-stars looks like when blown up into words but I can say that I thought the film was great despite it containing at least one tv-ready moment ("What's this?" "Dinner." "YOU ENJOY EATING IT!" *shoves away dinner*) that had to be in the film to justify the clinical talk of sex partners. But, really, we don't need the Angry Dad scene; we would have had an intimation of home life without it had they just kept to the pre-procedure interview. Or such is my belief. I like when the audience has a little bit of mystery and, yes, this is nitpickery.

I'll also praise Dean's thrown punch because fights so rarely look realistic in the movies. Disorganized, thrown houseplant, knocked paper, profuse apologies thrown right away... good to see that. It reminded me of a drunken friend that turned violent and extremely apologetic all within 1 second.

I'll partially forgive the Angry Dad scene because said Angry Dad was played by none other than John Doman, better known as Major Rawls from The Wire. I'll never not get a kick out of seeing a character from that show in a movie. It's something I love pointing out. It's also something that people tend to find highly annoying. They can eat shit for all I care.

But yeah, like you said, her family background could have been figured out by an attentive, perceptive audience (something I think this movie demands) without such a direct, overdone scene. One of the film's few missteps.

I think nitpicking a film like this one is inevitable, really. The reason the movie works is because of the nuance of the details, so the character psychologies and ways in which information is fleshed out is essential. I don't think it can be avoided. Or, put another way, I like to pick nits for giggles and shits.

Nitpickery, labeling of the mis-steps... it doesn't do any good, anway. And why? What word do I like and use frequently. That's right, that word.

Let's take the much-respected Rachel Getting Married as an example of a movie that, under study, mis-steps the hell out itself over and over again while the whole remains a very good movie.

I hated how Blue Valentine was shot. Well, actually, I hated it sometimes. It was at its best when it was unobtrusive. That scene when Gosling and Williams have their fight at Williams's work? Unobtrusive. Anything in the first thirty minutes of the film? Obtrusive and annoying.

In the long run, I'll have nothing but good things to say about Blue Valentine. It should be praised for its realism, from writing and performances to the overall look and structure of the film. And vision!

I'm already fairly pessimistic about marriage and children. This movie did nothing to discourage that. That, of course, doesn't affect its filmmaking, but it does affect my immediate response to it. I don't want to see Blue Valentine again for a long, long time. Is that unreasonable? I'm sorry I didn't like the film as much as you guys.

Wait wait wait. That wasn't a "theme" at all. And that is a pretty pat summary of Dean's motivation, no? He wasn't making some cheap sacrifice out of situational heroism but doing something that was entirely within his character.

But again, that is just splitting hairs, in that it is a superb movie, on all levels. That was just me looking for some small thing to critique.

On another note, was Gosling snubbed for an Oscar nod?

This was one of the most excrutiating movies I think I've ever seen.

In a good way or a bad way?

Since films that explore the complexities of human relations/interactions are among my favorite kinds of movies, this one definitely got my vote.

It's a testament to the film makers and the performers that I felt this way. It effectively accomplished what, I think, it set out to. That said, for me it was excruciating in a bad way. The complete lack of hope and total feeling of despair made it an unenjoyable experience for me. It may be a result of my current station, as a newly married, 30 year old man, with a child on the way, but nonetheless, I didn't like the movie. If I were giving stars, I suppose I'd give it two for the powerful performances and it's ability to make me feel so miserable, but I couldn't in good conscience recommend this to friends or family.

Rented this frpm Netflix and watched it last night.

Very good well-made film that joins the likes of Born On The Fourth Of July, Beloved and The Grey Zone on a list of well-made films that I doubt I can bring myself to watch more than once.

The acting by both Gosling and WIlliams was spot-on and the story managed to steer clear of the soap opera cliches that most movies of this type fall right into. In essence, it's easy to see Cianfrance's film as a riposte to those soap opera movies and a slap in the face to the "love will conquer all" sentimentality of the Nicholas Sparks crap.

Blue Valentine in a sense is an effective parable for why so many modern marriages fail (aside from the ones ended on account of physical/eotional abuse, drugs/alcohol or infidelity or a combination of). Cianfrance shows how so many times there's no real love or understanding between couple as friends and when that initial romantic euphoria wears off, they often realize this is not going to work.