Brooklyn (John Crowley, 2015)

[hearthesilence]

The reviews for Brooklyn have been awfully good, though it could be Ronan's performance that's carrying the day. (No other lead performance has garnered as much attention from the press so far this year.) Glenn Kenny was especially effusive about it. Has anyone else seen this?

[Ribs]

I saw it the other day at an early showing and I really did enjoy it - it's a bit Merchant-Ivory-y, what with it being all about relationship drama and choosing suitors (in particular the ending sequence does recall A Room With A View in a big way) and there's not really an antagonist figure whatsoever in the story. As such it's got those light comedy moments like those or Downton Abbey and much like those it's never laugh-out-loud funny (though the crowd was enjoying it) it certainly doesn't outstay its welcome. The big problem with the movie - which I completely understand people's criticisms though I'm not sure it really makes too much difference - is it's pretty patently obvious which of her suitors she'll choose in the end because if she chose the other one the audience would hate her.

It has a final shot of pure exuberance, though, that really communicates everything the movie's trying to say; I really admired it, despite it being this year's most cliched "movie seniors will like the most this awards season".

I went in with pretty low expectations mind before it was clear that the totally positive vibe from Sundance and TIFF would stick with the major papers so I could see people expecting this movie to just be absolutely amazing coming out disappointed.

[hearthesilence]

I actually had rather low expectations - looks beautiful but I've been afraid that it may be a bit sentimental and a little obvious - but I've been taken aback by how much some people love it. Will eventually check it out, though I should mention I'm a bit mixed about Merchant-Ivory in general, so the comparisons do make me wary.

[aox]

I actually had rather low expectations - looks beautiful but I've been afraid that it may be a bit sentimental and a little obvious - but I've been taken aback by how much some people love it. Will eventually check it out, though I should mention I'm a bit mixed about Merchant-Ivory in general, so the comparisons do make me wary.

I concur with this. The only reason I would see it is personal. My Great-Grandparents immigrated to the US in the 1920s. Each from Ireland and Sicily. They met in their late teens in Brooklyn and fell in love. Their families hated each other. I think the only saving grace at the end for both families (and why the relationship was allowed to continue) was that they were both Catholic. But, both still put up with a bunch of shit.

[hearthesilence]

When a filmgoing experience is personal like that, it can definitely make it more engaging than it ought to be, I've had that happen. But I've also had it backfire, where the film can seem all the less authentic.

[Luke M]

I saw this today and genuinely enjoyed it. I've been disappointed in nearly every film I've seen since Fury Road so this was a welcomed relief. It's not a great film but Ronan's performance is. She's superb and easily the best argument to check it out.

[mfunk9786]

To me what worked so great about Brooklyn was a depiction of a changing world by filming the 1940s and 50s as if they were the late 19th century, ornate and careful and traditional filmmaking that served the idea of how much agency Ronan's character had in shaping her life very well by providing a contradiction to it. Were this film indeed about a woman sent away to live in a boarding house in New York on a priest's dime fifty years prior, it would likely have been a lot more grim. Instead, we watch someone being presented an alternative to her traditional upbringing, then have the conveniences of that conservatism dangled back in front of her, and ultimately realize the value of what's in front of her - and the genuine good intentions of almost everyone involved in her story was a refreshing change of pace considering what this kind of a film usually is.

[aox]

This was good, but not without its problems that usually would make me be against the film. It performs several cliched tropes (the film comes full circle on the boat; the gotcha that the old store keeper gives her about the marriage) that I normally wouldn't go for; it's just as overly sentimental as the trailer would have you think it is. The historical subtext is magnificent (NYC, American immigration, the "old country", etc...) without being too overbearing. But, it somehow works, and I am convinced it is because Saoirse Ronan's performance is so strong that she can put the entire film on her shoulders. As stated before in this thread, I have a personal stake in this film, but it exceeded my expectations. The first act is grueling (immigration), and the last act (back in Ireland) is a gut-punch. I think the middle act is the only lull of the film, but there are a few comedic moments handled delicately that it works.

SpoilerShow

When she gets back to Ireland, I sort of got the same feeling from the film of forgetting her Italian husband. Not sure how the filmmaker was able to do that. It wasn't like the prospective Irish husband was all that enamoring, but he was charming enough that I understood why she might be interested. Also, with her mother's future at hand, it made sense. I liked the Italian husband, but the film was able to make me feel her detachment. When she reunited with him at the end, I felt such pathos for the situation and instantly rooting for her choice.)

Great film. She and Brie Larson might have to slug it out for the Best Actress Oscar.

[Ribs]

"Brooklyn" spinoff TV series in development

[Black Hat]

Forgettable film as it doesn't do much of anything despite it being framed in a way where it easily could have. Ronan is charming enough, but what is she asked to do? The film is certainly a vehicle for her and her alone, but in order for films like this to work you need to have your actor reveal a piece of themselves. Ronan, who I thought was quite good in The Grand Budapest Hotel, comes off as cold and detached here. Her performance reeked of 'If I say these lines in as understated a way as possible the story is emotionally manipulative enough to fool people into thinking I'm emotionally invested'. Admittedly the director may be far more to blame for this approach than her and the counter to my point would be this showed the emotional maturity of the character. The problem is it's a story about choosing a life for one self, sacrificing your past for a better future, but her decision was a reaction wholly inspired by a character who not only had proved herself prior to being cruel, but also was entirely inconsequential to her life. In other words you spend a hundred minutes with a character who is constantly praised for her maturity to only then watch her make the biggest decision of her life as a reaction to what some old hag has to say? Yeah, no, not gonna be able to do it.

SpoilerShow

Gleeson's character by every indication seemed to be a far better match for her than a Brooklyn Italian plumber who needs his 8 year old brother to help write complete sentences. What was the point of this movie, leave your home country where a Prince Charming wants to marry you to marry a plumber in Brooklyn? Who's idea of a an uplifting immigrant's tale was this? I can almost hear every immigrant grandmother saying, "What an idiot."

To me what worked so great about Brooklyn was a depiction of a changing world by filming the 1940s and 50s as if they were the late 19th century

Can you explain how setting a film in one time period, but filming it as if it were another, works great? It seems to be a rather numskulled way to make a movie, but I'd love to hear it defended. Indeed I thought this was the strangest part of Brooklyn. This confusion completely drew me out of the story and The Quiet Man reference almost seemed like a nod to this bungling of cinematic storytelling.

[Michael Kerpan]

Can you explain how setting a film in one time period, but filming it as if it were another, works great? It seems to be a rather numskulled way to make a movie, but I'd love to hear it defended.

Seems to be par for the course for Shakespeare on both stage and screen these days. And most of the time the re-periodization strikes me as pretty unsuccessful there too.

[MaxBercovicz]

Forgettable film as it doesn't do much of anything despite it being framed in a way where it easily could have. Ronan is charming enough, but what is she asked to do? The film is certainly a vehicle for her and her alone, but in order for films like this to work you need to have your actor reveal a piece of themselves. Ronan, who I thought was quite good in The Grand Budapest Hotel, comes off as cold and detached here. Her performance reeked of 'If I say these lines in as understated a way as possible the story is emotionally manipulative enough to fool people into thinking I'm emotionally invested'. Admittedly the director may be far more to blame for this approach than her and the counter to my point would be this showed the emotional maturity of the character. The problem is it's a story about choosing a life for one self, sacrificing your past for a better future, but her decision was a reaction wholly inspired by a character who not only had proved herself prior to being cruel, but also was entirely inconsequential to her life. In other words you spend a hundred minutes with a character who is constantly praised for her maturity to only then watch her make the biggest decision of her life as a reaction to what some old hag has to say? Yeah, no, not gonna be able to do it.

SpoilerShow

Gleeson's character by every indication seemed to be a far better match for her than a Brooklyn Italian plumber who needs his 8 year old brother to help write complete sentences. What was the point of this movie, leave your home country where a Prince Charming wants to marry you to marry a plumber in Brooklyn? Who's idea of a an uplifting immigrant's tale was this? I can almost hear every immigrant grandmother saying, "What an idiot."

SpoilerShow

It all came down to duty, and how Eilis felt compelled to honor her marriage and return home. She knew that was the "right" thing to do and the talk with old hag snapped her back to reality in a sense. Her Catholicism probably played a strong role in here.

I don't think she knew for sure if she loved Tony and would be happy in America. She was torn, and I personally suspect she wanted to stay in Ireland and live with Jim. But she made a commitment and chose to stick with it.

[neal]

SpoilerShow

It all came down to duty, and how Eilis felt compelled to honor her marriage and return home. She knew that was the "right" thing to do and the talk with old hag snapped her back to reality in a sense. Her Catholicism probably played a strong role in here.

I don't think she knew for sure if she loved Tony and would be happy in America. She was torn, and I personally suspect she wanted to stay in Ireland and live with Jim. But she made a commitment and chose to stick with it.

I don't think that's quite right...

SpoilerShow

She decides to go back not out of a sense of duty but because the conversation with Miss Kelly (the shop owner) reminds her of just what a gossipy, small town Ireland is for her. That is, at least, the immediate catalyst. In Brooklyn, she gets to live her own life. In Ireland, everyone else is trying to chart the course of her life. Is that an idealized image of Brooklyn? Obviously.

But I think that there are two exchanges in the film that sort of set up the mindset for her heading back to America. The first is when her roommate on her initial voyage to America tells her to "[t]ry and remember that sometimes it's nice to meet people who don't know your auntie." The second is the sort of "the grass is always greener" conversation with her housemate in the rooming house bathroom when Eilis asks her housemate whether she'd get married again, and the house mate replies by basically saying: "Obviously I would, I don't want to be waiting for you to finish using the bathroom every day for the rest of my life. I want my own bathroom. And when I'm waiting for my hairy, mean husband to finish using the bathroom, I'll wish I was back here talking to you."

[Professor Wagstaff]

SpoilerShow

I think Jim seems like a more desirable mate in the context of their small community, but he's a blander pick. He follows the herd in the way he acts and dresses until Eilis calls him out on it. As smart and charming as he seems to be, he's not really ambitious. He'll take over his family's home and business one day. While neither are bad things to inherit, Jim has accepted a course in life that's been laid out for him. Tony isn't like that. He may talk slower and not be articulate, but he certainly doesn't lack intelligence or ambitious. He is determined to get what he wants, like when he pursues Eilis or how he plans to build homes with his brothers on Long Island, a community destined to boom. He wants more for both his future and his family and feels determined to make his life something more than what is expected of him.