RSS
Thank you for visiting The Cinemologist. We specialize in the study of cinema. We love asking questions and learning new information.

Analysis: Blue Valentine


Blue Valentine is a fragmented story of a fragmented marriage. As the writer and director, Derek Cianfrance is the artist of this dismal and unapologetic depiction of a marriage that's lost it's love. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play Dean and Cindy, two young lovers whose marriage has dissolved to a loveless schedule. They do what they are supposed to do as a couple, but there is no love.

Plot: Told from two different times, the beginning and end of their relationship, Blue Valentine shows what could be interpreted as the disease of love. The film breaks up the plot into two separate times, the past and present. It's occasionally hard to follow when the plot cuts through different times. The actors underwent major transformations to portray the two different times, but the darkness of the film made that hard to notice at first. This plot structure deals in dichotomies: a young, unstoppable love and a dead, withering marriage. This style also lends itself to a critical viewing of the early times. I found myself looking for personality quirks or pet peeves that could lead this marriage to the fate we see on the other side, but there seems to be nothing that alludes to the unfortunate outcome.  The absence of the middle, or the act II of their marriage, is missing, but let's explore that in the story section.

Story: What could have happened to cause these two people to fall out of love? When showing their courtship, the couple seems fearless in their love. Dean pursues Cindy and finally manages to talk her into a goofy night on the town in which the couple behave like two giddy lovers, dancing and playing the ukulele in the streets. The scenes of their courting are reminiscent of other films' portrayal of a couple destined to be together forever. Flash forward to the present time, and we find that not to be the case. The fact that the film doesn't show you the middle of their relationship is a unique choice. As a viewer, you find yourself wanting to see that section, to comb through and discover catalyst of this deterioration of love. I believe that Derek left this section out on purpose, that in the story of these character's lives, there was no single event or action that caused their relationship to fall from grace. I would imagine that the real people that this sort of event happens to do the same thing, they look back on their relationship to find out what went wrong. I'm sure they have as much trouble finding a cause than we did in the theater.

Characters: As I just stated, judging just by the courtship scenes, we feel like we're watching a couple whose love is infallible, but we know more about their lives than this, at least that's true about Cindy. Cindy, it seems, doesn't know what love is. Her father is a violent and abusive husband to her mother. She resigns herself to ask her grandmother what it feels like to fall in love, but it seems as though grandmother experienced the same plight that Cindy will. Dean is given less of a back story, but one that seems similar to Cindy's. We find out that his mother and father split up when he was young, and that he no longer has contact with his mother. That loss of a maternal relationship has to have a negative effect on a child. Knowing this, we can see through this young love to find an splinter of doubt that will lead these star-crossed lovers to their eventual declination. In the present tense, there's an interesting display of their relationships. Dean lives his life for his family. His job is not so much the thing he goes to as much as the thing he comes home from. His life is with his family and he aims to make his wife and daughter happy. He fails miserably at the latter. The only time Dean ever displays any passion is when it comes to Cindy. Cindy never offers us an insight into why she's so unhappy. You'd think that living with someone whose only goal is to make you happy would be a gift, but it would appear not. She asks him during a drunken foray into a cheesy, futuristic sex motel why he doesn't pursue the things he's good at. She essentially asks him why he's content with the way they are right now. She phrases the question in terms of what would be best for him, but there are definitely undertones in her question. Could she be asking him to chase his skills as a musician to enhance their lives or to get him to leave her? There's also the possibility that she's so depressed that she's asking how can he be content with living with someone like her.

Themes, Motifs, & Symbols: Love, or rather the absence of love, is the major theme here. The absence of love in the marriages of the character's lives is the foreshadowing that explains what could have happened to these characters who were once so in love. In the opening scene of the film, we find out that Cindy forgot to lock the gate to their dog's pen who has escaped. This results in the dog's death. This event plays as both a precipitating event as well as a symbol for this family. I believe it provides a metaphor for them to realize that their love is dead. The final image of the film was strikingly oblique and was one that I'm continuing to think about even now. The film ends with Dean walking away from his wife and daughter after she asks for a divorce, and in the background, children are shooting off fireworks. Fireworks, obviously are usually reserved for celebrations, and as we know, nothing on screen is an accident. It makes me wonder what CianfranceCianfrance is trying to say.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think that you're reading into this story a bit too much. While it is a deep and disturbing tale, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the dog escaping was a symbol of ... whatever you were trying to say that it was a symbol of. It was just an example of a fight between the couple, and how things have gone sour between the two. It was also showing how she's fed up with being blamed for everything while he gets to be hero and the fun one.

Additionally, I did not see same blissful, invincible couple that you saw in the "past." He was obviously a rebound and a "savior" from her former disastrous relationship. The couple was doomed from the start. As long as he was one step above Charles Manson she would have fallen for him. However, feelings change, and they have to last the test of time. That's why it's important to date for a while, and maybe even move in together before you make the leap of marriage.

Additionally, she wanted things out of life. She didn't just want to have a lower-middle class life where "love conquers all." He was being lazy and a loser, and he was unwilling to take the next step in life. Supposedly, he was smart and had "potential" but never chose to pursue that potential. Therefore, she kicked him to the curb.

Adam Minor said...

Thank you for your comment. You raise some exceptionally valid points. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to repost this comment on our new site at: thecinemologist.com

so that we may present your comment on the new site.

Thanks again!

-Adam

Anonymous said...

I think that Cindy not only doesn't grasp the concept of love, but also struggles with issues of intimacy over time. She may have been sexually abused by her father. She seems to expect that sex should be rough and violent. We see this when she wants Dean to hit her while she's on floor of the cheap motel. Dean expects that sex is part of an intimate and meaningful relationship and refuses to grant her request. But clearly he wants some affection that is missing from their relationship and I suspect that one reason he focuses so much attention on his daughter, who does show kindness and love to him. Dean's frequent childish behavior, which works well for Frankie, is annoying to Cindy and she clearly is tired of taking care of 2 children, which may account for her aloofness and loss of love as well.

Anonymous said...

Hi Adam,
I'd like to ressurect this old discussion as I just watched this film last night. I am appreciative of your detailed analysis and would like to continue the conversation with you about this. Here is the complicated question we are trying to answer:
Why did their love fail?
Here are my answers:
1. It's not his kid. Trying to love and support a woman who has a child that is not yours, is a path that is riddled with conflicted emotions that must be suppressed inorder to continue this unnatural path. You will convince yourself that you actually love a child that is not yours, but that is after denying your human nature. In the natural world, you are not scoring any points. GAME OVER.
2. He was a "nobody" until he found her, and found importance in his life being the new instant husband and father. This is an "empty" life choice, because this was NOT his kid, and being a good "provider" is equally as important as being a lover and loving daddy.
3. She has felt guilty for letting this guy into her life and has projected this in her behaviours. She rejects him because she can't live with the thought that ANY DAY he can walk away because this is NOT his kid. A Man's love for the woman will NEVER be stronger glue than the love of genetic offspring. Her knowing this makes her behave in strange and insecure ways.
4. Her tainted exposure for a "model" father/husband was her abusive father's behaviour. When she looks for this same type of behaviour in Dean, and does not find it, it causes her this unfulfilled yet disfunctional desire in her own life. Yes, her father was abusive, but he was also strong, ascertive and was a good provider. Dean provided her everything her father did not, but didn't provide anything else. Her final thought was to yearn for the DEVIL she knew.

The lonely one said...

I think this is the story of the beta male - the nice guy. Her father was rough and a provider, her ex was rough too and she kept his child but she threw Dean away because he was repulsive to her after 5 years of neediness.

All her relationships where about trying to validate her self proving herself and this guy comes along and accepts her for who she was.

That is crux of this she lost her romance because she did not need to work at it anymore...it was too easy.

Anonymous said...

It's a brilliant analysis, and somehow I feel that you didn't finish it.. somehow I feel there is more to it, like the other 50% you didn't write.
I apologize for my Engish, because I am European. Well, anyway, the story of this, one of my favourite, movies is very disturbing and realistic. I can say that I had almost entirely same experience in my life with a woman, who even looked a lot like a movie heroine. I found that almost bizarre when I watched it. Anyway, the problem of this relationship is very obvious. He loves her too much, too soon, too often, too obvious... He is dying for her and his love is almost like coming from some old Greek tragedy. From the beginning on, he is always a step ahead. He gives her his phone no. and it's obvious she doesn't call.. he tries to swindle his way to her through grandmother.. and even when he does it.. she is still quite uninterested in him. The only and really the only reason why eventually she decides to give him a go is because she wants to get rid of her boyfriend. I am a divorced father of two daughters.. and I can say that his relationship with his daughter is pristine and absolutely flawless.. straight A. He loves her truly and dearly, nothing I mean really nothing less than being his own daughter. So, I don't agree with the thesis mentioned on this blog, that we have to look for a reason why they didn't succeed in a fact that the daughter is not his. I believe that is only the last hit he has to take it, before he succumbs.. into the obscurity of life. It would be interesting maybe to make a sequeal of this movie.

Anonymous said...

What it sounds like to me is that nobody analyzing this movie knows what they're talking about. Take 5 minutes to ask a married couple how they did it, and take another 5 minutes to ask a divorced couple what went wrong and you'll see the difference. It's a very basic movie with a very unbiased angle. The philosophy used at the beginning of the film sets the premise, and later that premise plays out. "I fee like men are more romantic than women. When we get married we marry like one girl, cause we're resistant the whole way. Then we met one girl, we think "i'd be an idiot if I didn't marry this one girl, she's so great" but it seems like girls get to this place where they pick the best option. I know girls and they're like "he's got a good job." I mean they spend their whole lives looking for prince charming and then they marry the guy who has a good job and is going to stick around." That's exactly what happened. The movie wasn't definitive; we don't know what happened after. It's possible they never work it out, it's possible they split up but get resolve (visa versa), and its possible they eventually work it out. If you've never been in a long term committed relationship (especially if you haven’t been married or have kids) it's a lot harder to understand what they're going through, and everyone who’s been there eventually reaches this point. It's really a matter of how you'll handle it, and we see them handle it very poorly. There was no kicking to the curb, there was no anyone wasting potential, or being a loser. All of those are a matter of perspective. I don't see any analysis; all I see is people judging very real characters they don't understand. What's wrong with being a content family man? How is taking care of someone else’s child a poor life choice? (especially considering he does nothing but love his child in every interaction) and even does a remakable jog handling the dog getting hit explanation. Luckily I had good parents that played with me and my siblings when we were little because that would have been a sad pathetic childhood if my parents were like Cindy (from the film).

Good example. She runs into the same abusive guy who got her pregnant and jumped Dean in the warehouse and don't even understand why he was upset she didn't say anything sooner until we find out what happened. She neglected to tell him BECAUSE she knew how he would have reacted. She made a good decision, however, Dean isn't stupid and he knew exactly why she didn't say anything, so he takes his frustration out on her. Is that right? Absolutely not. He has a quick temper, but not once does he lay a finger on her. His bad habit is that he occasionally acts this way with her. Her bad habit is she never talks about it. They both have a bad habit of being defensive when confronted rather than being able to discuss anything. She leaves for work in the morning and leaves him there. Is that right? No, that's inconsiderate. She pushes him away in the shower when he's trying his best to be intimate and sensual. This is an example of how much he's still in love with her, and how much she's not, and a better example of how none of these differences of feelings are being discussed. I could keep going, but I'll stop in case I end up wasting my breath. While still biased I feel anaymous' post dated March 4th 2011 was easily the most accurate just to throw that out there. (p.s. being lazy and a loser is someone who doesn't support their family and doesn't love their children.)

Oh, and to the person who said its unnatural loving a child that isn’t yours, never had kids. Someone with that disowning mind set could never raise a child.

 
Copyright 2009 The Cinemologist. All rights reserved.
Free WordPress Themes Presented by EZwpthemes.
Bloggerized by Miss Dothy