I came in to this movie hoping for something resembling a story of two adults doing what's best for their child even though they were going through a divorce. What I got was one adult, Charlie (Adam Driver) being dragged through a river of crap by his selfish, child of a wife Nicole (Scarlett Johansson).
Although the writers make an effort to portray Nicole as a victim by virtue of her moving to NYC to be with Charlie, the film backtracks on that narrative by Nicole's own admission that she was miserable in L.A. because of her then boyfriend. Nicole needed a change of scenery. Enter Charlie. She met him, moved to NYC, married him, worked with him to create a successful business, and then pulled the rug out from under him once his fame began to surpass her own.
In an effort to justify her behavior, Nicole alludes to an "affair" Charlie had, but we later learn that it only occurred after he and Nicole were separated but under the same roof. As Charlie put it, he was sleeping on the couch at that point and living with a woman who loathed him for his success and her belief that she gave up too much when she (voluntarily) left L.A.
Every act taken by Nicole in this film screams of weakness and insecurity. Nicole can be pushed and pulled in whatever direction anyone wants her to take. She and Charlie agree that they don't want a nasty divorce. So, what does she do? She hires the nastiest divorce lawyer in L.A. at the suggestion of a woman she has known for five minutes. She moves their son to L.A. under false pretenses and files for divorce in L.A. Why? Because her attorney told her to. The goal? To make sure Charlie has to hire an L.A. lawyer at great expense. You see, she knows he can't afford to fight for custody in L.A. But is that enough? Nope. Nicole then goes all over L.A. meeting with other divorce attorneys. Why does she do this (with her kid in tow mind you) when she already has an attorney? To create a conflict of interest in case Charlie wanted to retain a competent attorney of his own. Attorneys can't work with Charlie once she has poisoned the well you see. She does all this to make sure Charlie can't see his child. Meanwhile, she acknowledges how great of a dad he is. "He does the things for their son that should bother him, and enjoys doing it. To the point that she hates him for it".
This was all done before Charlie even knows what's coming. In the meantime, Nicole continues to shower Charlie with praise and assure him she wants what's best for both of them. But, you see, Nicole is a coward. She cannot fight her own fights, and despite paying tens of thousands of dollars for her attorney (but first making sure that Charlie has to pay 30% of it), she forces her sister to serve Charlie with divorce papers. Why would she make her sister do this when it would only cost a couple hundred bucks to have it done by an actual process server? Well, because this hurts more. Charlie is close with Nicole's family. In fact, it's the only family he has and has ever had. So, naturally, Nicole wants his sister in law to serve him with the divorce papers. "You have to take a side" she tells her mom. "You can't have a relationship with Charlie anymore" under any circumstances. Why? Because, it's about the hurt. Nicole is an insecure child. Her only satisfaction in this film comes from forcing others to share in her misery.
As Nicole drags everyone else into her miserable existence with the hope that it will prop her up, Charlie continues propping up others around him despite his misery. He is a legitimately good person who doesn't deserve the hand he is being dealt. In a fruitless effort to fight for his child, he throws away a $625,000 grant which was supposed to be used for his business. He becomes a victim to a society and a court system that assumes fathers are pieces of crap while mothers can do no wrong. Ironically, at one point in the film Nicole's rabid attorney states the exact opposite, that Nicole needs to be perfect but Charlie can be a buffoon. Those who live in reality know that is not the case. It takes something bordering on child endangerment before a mother loses priority when it comes to custody.
Ultimately, Charlie does what every man seems to do in these films. He loses. First he loses his wife because she decides on a whim that New York is no longer good enough. Then he loses his son when she moves him to L.A. under the cover of night. Finally, Charlie loses his livelihood when he can no longer afford to keep the theater open and has to choose between his life's work and his son. As the film closes we see that he has lost once more. He has lost his will to fight. He takes a menial job in Los Angeles (to Nicole's dismay mind you) directing small bit plays. His status as an up and coming Broadway director is gone. Nicole has gotten everything she wanted without even the tiniest compromise. Charlie has lost everything. He has been handed a pile of crap by his wife and is being told in no uncertain terms that he will eat it and tell her how great it tastes. If he refuses, he won't see his child.
While it is obvious that Johannson is not Nicole, she embodies her completely, and I personally wonder if I will enjoy her other movies in the future given how despicable a character Nicole is in this film. 5 stars out of 10 for the acting and direction, but the way Nicole's character was written makes me wonder what the goal of this film is. It certainly is not intended to make anyone feel good about the state of humanity as it currently exists.
Although the writers make an effort to portray Nicole as a victim by virtue of her moving to NYC to be with Charlie, the film backtracks on that narrative by Nicole's own admission that she was miserable in L.A. because of her then boyfriend. Nicole needed a change of scenery. Enter Charlie. She met him, moved to NYC, married him, worked with him to create a successful business, and then pulled the rug out from under him once his fame began to surpass her own.
In an effort to justify her behavior, Nicole alludes to an "affair" Charlie had, but we later learn that it only occurred after he and Nicole were separated but under the same roof. As Charlie put it, he was sleeping on the couch at that point and living with a woman who loathed him for his success and her belief that she gave up too much when she (voluntarily) left L.A.
Every act taken by Nicole in this film screams of weakness and insecurity. Nicole can be pushed and pulled in whatever direction anyone wants her to take. She and Charlie agree that they don't want a nasty divorce. So, what does she do? She hires the nastiest divorce lawyer in L.A. at the suggestion of a woman she has known for five minutes. She moves their son to L.A. under false pretenses and files for divorce in L.A. Why? Because her attorney told her to. The goal? To make sure Charlie has to hire an L.A. lawyer at great expense. You see, she knows he can't afford to fight for custody in L.A. But is that enough? Nope. Nicole then goes all over L.A. meeting with other divorce attorneys. Why does she do this (with her kid in tow mind you) when she already has an attorney? To create a conflict of interest in case Charlie wanted to retain a competent attorney of his own. Attorneys can't work with Charlie once she has poisoned the well you see. She does all this to make sure Charlie can't see his child. Meanwhile, she acknowledges how great of a dad he is. "He does the things for their son that should bother him, and enjoys doing it. To the point that she hates him for it".
This was all done before Charlie even knows what's coming. In the meantime, Nicole continues to shower Charlie with praise and assure him she wants what's best for both of them. But, you see, Nicole is a coward. She cannot fight her own fights, and despite paying tens of thousands of dollars for her attorney (but first making sure that Charlie has to pay 30% of it), she forces her sister to serve Charlie with divorce papers. Why would she make her sister do this when it would only cost a couple hundred bucks to have it done by an actual process server? Well, because this hurts more. Charlie is close with Nicole's family. In fact, it's the only family he has and has ever had. So, naturally, Nicole wants his sister in law to serve him with the divorce papers. "You have to take a side" she tells her mom. "You can't have a relationship with Charlie anymore" under any circumstances. Why? Because, it's about the hurt. Nicole is an insecure child. Her only satisfaction in this film comes from forcing others to share in her misery.
As Nicole drags everyone else into her miserable existence with the hope that it will prop her up, Charlie continues propping up others around him despite his misery. He is a legitimately good person who doesn't deserve the hand he is being dealt. In a fruitless effort to fight for his child, he throws away a $625,000 grant which was supposed to be used for his business. He becomes a victim to a society and a court system that assumes fathers are pieces of crap while mothers can do no wrong. Ironically, at one point in the film Nicole's rabid attorney states the exact opposite, that Nicole needs to be perfect but Charlie can be a buffoon. Those who live in reality know that is not the case. It takes something bordering on child endangerment before a mother loses priority when it comes to custody.
Ultimately, Charlie does what every man seems to do in these films. He loses. First he loses his wife because she decides on a whim that New York is no longer good enough. Then he loses his son when she moves him to L.A. under the cover of night. Finally, Charlie loses his livelihood when he can no longer afford to keep the theater open and has to choose between his life's work and his son. As the film closes we see that he has lost once more. He has lost his will to fight. He takes a menial job in Los Angeles (to Nicole's dismay mind you) directing small bit plays. His status as an up and coming Broadway director is gone. Nicole has gotten everything she wanted without even the tiniest compromise. Charlie has lost everything. He has been handed a pile of crap by his wife and is being told in no uncertain terms that he will eat it and tell her how great it tastes. If he refuses, he won't see his child.
While it is obvious that Johannson is not Nicole, she embodies her completely, and I personally wonder if I will enjoy her other movies in the future given how despicable a character Nicole is in this film. 5 stars out of 10 for the acting and direction, but the way Nicole's character was written makes me wonder what the goal of this film is. It certainly is not intended to make anyone feel good about the state of humanity as it currently exists.