I listened to Hanif Hareishi speak on the radio recently. Immediately, I was itching to see the film he had written which has just been released here - 'Le Weekend'. Nick and Meg, a couple from London, around 60 years old I'd say, have decided to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary in Paris.
We're given endless visual clues as to their relationship before they have exchanged words. On the Eurostar it is clear they are very much a couple, able to predict what the other is thinking. There's closeness there, for sure, but there is also an unnerving frustration with one another. When Nick starts to feel around his body Meg assures him he has the Euros, in an exasperated 'I knew you would do that' sort of way. When Meg catches a glimpse of the hotel Nick has booked (she did say she wanted to return to the hotel they'd stayed at many years ago) her disappointment is clear.
When Nick is unable to secure a room that is not "beige" she simply hails a taxi, leaving Nick scampering after her before she sails off in the taxi without him. One immediately gets the feeling that Nick is trying to satisfy Meg, but it is no easy task. One also gets the feeling that Nick's best years are (he's a Professor who has not published...) behind him. "Ohhh, Meg, don't do this," he calls out after her. The thing about their relationship is that it is always on the knife's edge. We just don't know, and they just don't know, which way it is going to go.
It's this understanding of 'opposites' in the writing that makes it so watchable as a movie I think. Love can turn to hate and back to love within seconds. Frustration is just a hair's breath away from enthusiasm. Their emotions, the atmosphere and the course of this weekend changes direction endlessly. One example that springs to mind is their choice of a restaurant for their first lunch.
It's abundantly clear that Nick will be happy with anything that makes Meg happy and as they go about their search, a passing parade of restaurants, Meg announces what is wrong with them. "Too modern" On they walk. "Too empty" On they walk. "Too touristy." On they walk, and so on, until Meg announces that they have found the right one. I recall Hareishi stating in the interview that he wanted to explore various topics, like intimacy, but he wanted to make it light; for it to be funny. I saw many moments such as these very funny, more funny than the audience at large, but maybe that's because my husband and I have done similar things; searched for the perfect restaurant overseas in a similar way. Haven't all couples done similar things?
What is also interesting about the writing is what happens when a third character is introduced. Morgan is a media-star academic from the States who has looked up to Nick as something of a mentor. They meet on the street by chance at a moment when Nick and Meg are being very affectionate. Morgan (played by Jeff Goldblum) invites them to dinner the following evening to celebrate the publishing of his new book. Morgan has plenty of money, a beautiful apartment and a lovely new wife who is pregnant.
When Nick and Meg take their first glance of the chic living room filled with 'the beautiful people' (academics and publishers) I mistakenly think they are enthralled at the possibilities of what the evening might bestow. Every guest has a major achievement of one kind or another to his name. In fact, they are both profoundly uncomfortable and seek out independently the most private corners of the apartment they can find.
It's when Nick is befriend by Morgan's young adult son in his bedroom that we learn that all is not entirely perfect in Morgan's world. His former wife tried to kill herself when her husband left them and although Morgan buys his son airline tickets to visit he is uncomfortable when they are in the same room. When Nick discusses with Morgan how he felt about leaving his wife he glosses over. "She adores me," he says of the new wife. "Doesn't everyone want to be adored?" And moments later, "but she will see through me eventually." Wow. Such insecurity and vulnerability on display. There's a superficiality on display as well that makes Meg and Nick's relationship, their durability, seem wholesome and right by comparison, in spite of all the cracks.
At the end there's some kind of vague coming together, if you will. It allows you to leave the cinema without a sense of doom. There's hope for a future together without so much angst and "fury", as Meg puts it. Yet, I can't quite reconcile the sexual side of things. A comment by Nick about Meg's vagina makes it clear she hasn't wanted to be touched in years and although there is the odd stray kiss and rub, their sexuality is frozen. Nick only wants and has only ever wanted one woman, his wife, but Meg seeks more - to do things she hasn't done, whether that is to take up tango dancing and leave her teaching job, to have the thrill of leaving the restaurant by the back without paying the bill, or whatever pleases her. In fact, she has gone slightly mad in this process, buying items and meals she can't afford and putting them "on the room". "Its my mantra," she says to the sales assistant in the clothing store at the hotel.
In some senses, the whole situation is an aberration. She has major flaws and so does he. Life isn't ideal for either of them but they are deeply bonded, not just by history and their children, but by some deep mechanism that no other man or woman can put asunder. No-one else has a real chance of breaking their union, now or ever, because they both have strong doses of empathy for one another, and they both have a sense of humor about life and about one another. You just know they won't part.
Personally, watching their relationship unfold on the screen left me a little depressed. I deplore with every bone in my body the thought of aging without a sense of sensuality and sexuality in my life. Meg's "fury" relates to that, in my opinion. She wants a sexual relationship. She's simply allowed and Nick has also allowed things to get in their way. They argue over whether they should allow their adult son to return to the family home with the wife and baby when this should be their time. If Nick really wants Meg, then why would he allow it, her mind seems to be asking. Is she also asking herself, I wonder, if he really wants me then why isn't he more forceful about it??
If you really think about this film (if you do see it) Nick doesn't enable a situation where Meg can follow his lead and Meg doesn't allow Nick the opportunity to lead. Meg chooses the restaurants, places to go, exploits they get up to and the sexual tension or lack thereof. She says she is nodding off to sleep when he suggests sex. She attempts a scene where he is on his knees and looking up her skirt, only to walk away and thus humiliating him. She buys all the goods and services they can't afford and he just goes along. Though, he does do the damage to the hotel wall. This is indeed his stunt and she voices no alarm about it.
It's only when she hurts him by mistake and draws blood that he tells her in a deep, no-nonsense voice to show him her breasts. She complies immediately. She looked to me like she liked that instruction and enjoyed the tinge of fear in the air when he was cross with her. But, they didn't explore this dynamic further; were too comfortable in their frustration with one another to do that.
Ultimately though the third party allows Nick and Meg to join forces again. When all seems lost and it seems we can't go any lower she remembers and shares something - a conversation on the phone with Nick recently when she was laughing and engaged and her friend thought it must be a lover, certainly not her husband. She saves the day this time just as he saves the day at other moments. In this way, the relationship is wonderfully balanced.
In a sense, the frustration is directed not so much at one another as at life. When did they grow old? When did they use up their youth? Why can't they have fun; laugh; be frivolous; ridiculous; irresponsible? As they have shared life's journey so too will they share old age; sometimes angry; sometimes frustrated; sometimes empathic; sometimes loving one another and sometimes hating one another. It will go on. There is no other alternative for their love. Wonderful writing and fabulous acting throughout the movie. If only such a film for grown ups were not such a rarity.
We're given endless visual clues as to their relationship before they have exchanged words. On the Eurostar it is clear they are very much a couple, able to predict what the other is thinking. There's closeness there, for sure, but there is also an unnerving frustration with one another. When Nick starts to feel around his body Meg assures him he has the Euros, in an exasperated 'I knew you would do that' sort of way. When Meg catches a glimpse of the hotel Nick has booked (she did say she wanted to return to the hotel they'd stayed at many years ago) her disappointment is clear.
When Nick is unable to secure a room that is not "beige" she simply hails a taxi, leaving Nick scampering after her before she sails off in the taxi without him. One immediately gets the feeling that Nick is trying to satisfy Meg, but it is no easy task. One also gets the feeling that Nick's best years are (he's a Professor who has not published...) behind him. "Ohhh, Meg, don't do this," he calls out after her. The thing about their relationship is that it is always on the knife's edge. We just don't know, and they just don't know, which way it is going to go.
It's this understanding of 'opposites' in the writing that makes it so watchable as a movie I think. Love can turn to hate and back to love within seconds. Frustration is just a hair's breath away from enthusiasm. Their emotions, the atmosphere and the course of this weekend changes direction endlessly. One example that springs to mind is their choice of a restaurant for their first lunch.
It's abundantly clear that Nick will be happy with anything that makes Meg happy and as they go about their search, a passing parade of restaurants, Meg announces what is wrong with them. "Too modern" On they walk. "Too empty" On they walk. "Too touristy." On they walk, and so on, until Meg announces that they have found the right one. I recall Hareishi stating in the interview that he wanted to explore various topics, like intimacy, but he wanted to make it light; for it to be funny. I saw many moments such as these very funny, more funny than the audience at large, but maybe that's because my husband and I have done similar things; searched for the perfect restaurant overseas in a similar way. Haven't all couples done similar things?
What is also interesting about the writing is what happens when a third character is introduced. Morgan is a media-star academic from the States who has looked up to Nick as something of a mentor. They meet on the street by chance at a moment when Nick and Meg are being very affectionate. Morgan (played by Jeff Goldblum) invites them to dinner the following evening to celebrate the publishing of his new book. Morgan has plenty of money, a beautiful apartment and a lovely new wife who is pregnant.
When Nick and Meg take their first glance of the chic living room filled with 'the beautiful people' (academics and publishers) I mistakenly think they are enthralled at the possibilities of what the evening might bestow. Every guest has a major achievement of one kind or another to his name. In fact, they are both profoundly uncomfortable and seek out independently the most private corners of the apartment they can find.
It's when Nick is befriend by Morgan's young adult son in his bedroom that we learn that all is not entirely perfect in Morgan's world. His former wife tried to kill herself when her husband left them and although Morgan buys his son airline tickets to visit he is uncomfortable when they are in the same room. When Nick discusses with Morgan how he felt about leaving his wife he glosses over. "She adores me," he says of the new wife. "Doesn't everyone want to be adored?" And moments later, "but she will see through me eventually." Wow. Such insecurity and vulnerability on display. There's a superficiality on display as well that makes Meg and Nick's relationship, their durability, seem wholesome and right by comparison, in spite of all the cracks.
At the end there's some kind of vague coming together, if you will. It allows you to leave the cinema without a sense of doom. There's hope for a future together without so much angst and "fury", as Meg puts it. Yet, I can't quite reconcile the sexual side of things. A comment by Nick about Meg's vagina makes it clear she hasn't wanted to be touched in years and although there is the odd stray kiss and rub, their sexuality is frozen. Nick only wants and has only ever wanted one woman, his wife, but Meg seeks more - to do things she hasn't done, whether that is to take up tango dancing and leave her teaching job, to have the thrill of leaving the restaurant by the back without paying the bill, or whatever pleases her. In fact, she has gone slightly mad in this process, buying items and meals she can't afford and putting them "on the room". "Its my mantra," she says to the sales assistant in the clothing store at the hotel.
In some senses, the whole situation is an aberration. She has major flaws and so does he. Life isn't ideal for either of them but they are deeply bonded, not just by history and their children, but by some deep mechanism that no other man or woman can put asunder. No-one else has a real chance of breaking their union, now or ever, because they both have strong doses of empathy for one another, and they both have a sense of humor about life and about one another. You just know they won't part.
Personally, watching their relationship unfold on the screen left me a little depressed. I deplore with every bone in my body the thought of aging without a sense of sensuality and sexuality in my life. Meg's "fury" relates to that, in my opinion. She wants a sexual relationship. She's simply allowed and Nick has also allowed things to get in their way. They argue over whether they should allow their adult son to return to the family home with the wife and baby when this should be their time. If Nick really wants Meg, then why would he allow it, her mind seems to be asking. Is she also asking herself, I wonder, if he really wants me then why isn't he more forceful about it??
If you really think about this film (if you do see it) Nick doesn't enable a situation where Meg can follow his lead and Meg doesn't allow Nick the opportunity to lead. Meg chooses the restaurants, places to go, exploits they get up to and the sexual tension or lack thereof. She says she is nodding off to sleep when he suggests sex. She attempts a scene where he is on his knees and looking up her skirt, only to walk away and thus humiliating him. She buys all the goods and services they can't afford and he just goes along. Though, he does do the damage to the hotel wall. This is indeed his stunt and she voices no alarm about it.
It's only when she hurts him by mistake and draws blood that he tells her in a deep, no-nonsense voice to show him her breasts. She complies immediately. She looked to me like she liked that instruction and enjoyed the tinge of fear in the air when he was cross with her. But, they didn't explore this dynamic further; were too comfortable in their frustration with one another to do that.
Ultimately though the third party allows Nick and Meg to join forces again. When all seems lost and it seems we can't go any lower she remembers and shares something - a conversation on the phone with Nick recently when she was laughing and engaged and her friend thought it must be a lover, certainly not her husband. She saves the day this time just as he saves the day at other moments. In this way, the relationship is wonderfully balanced.
In a sense, the frustration is directed not so much at one another as at life. When did they grow old? When did they use up their youth? Why can't they have fun; laugh; be frivolous; ridiculous; irresponsible? As they have shared life's journey so too will they share old age; sometimes angry; sometimes frustrated; sometimes empathic; sometimes loving one another and sometimes hating one another. It will go on. There is no other alternative for their love. Wonderful writing and fabulous acting throughout the movie. If only such a film for grown ups were not such a rarity.
It does sound like a film for grown ups but it also sounds very depressing the way their lives turned out.
ReplyDeleteFD
FD: There is a "depressing" aspect to their lives. They don't have enough money to retire really and their marriage had became stale. Their son was a disappointment "watching television in the afternoons" and still expecting his parents to keep him and his young family. They definitely have their challenges.
ReplyDeleteBut, they are bright and eccentric with an ironical and often dark sense of humor, and an abiding interest in life. I think Meg had reached a point in her life where she was asking "Is that all there is?" So, her question was, 'Should we stay together or move on?' She was the primary instigator of any change, I think, and Nick, seeing the need, was willing to go with the flow. Standing up to his son and refusing to allow him to move back with them was an indicator of his new frame of mind. There's a strong chance their love and their lives were invigorated after the weekend. But then, it's SO hard for people to really change their behavior, so we'll never really know...
Although the film is unlikely to be seen by a wide audience this process is not at all uncommon for people of this age. Most people may not express their thoughts in words but who hasn't said to themselves "Is this it? Am I with you until death do us part?" I think until you make a really conscious decision to stay together, regardless of the flaws and failings, to embrace the flaws, if you like, then the question remains an open one; something of a universal theme, I would have said.
My husband and I recently saw this movie. It made us look at our own relationship and reflect. I definitely agree with you. If only such a film for grown ups were not such a rarity!
ReplyDeleteBoudoir Babe: Thank you for reminding me about this post and the film. I heard Jim Broadbent being interviewed about his career since then and he mentioned what a delight it was to make this movie. However apparently Lindsay Duncan, the wife, likes to remain within herself before shooting a scene and of course as you would expect Jeff Goldblum likes to be more like a clown entertaining the troops, so Jim said he spent his time trying to secure both environments at the same time which was an almost impossible task for him. I think there was a certain amount of improvisation going on during shoots. In some ways it sounds like the characters they played were an offshoot of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI so agree about the reaction to the movie. In a very short time we'll have our lives back - school will finally be over - and I hope that as we travel more we'll find a spontaneity and fun that has been missing of late. I'm working on that as we speak, one more recreation of the relationship in the works.
Good luck.