In Theaters Nov 08 2008 @ 02:02 pm
REVIEW: Rachel Getting Married
Directed By: Jonathan Demme
Written By: Jenny Lumet
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Debra Winger, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin
Running Time: 114 minutes
Rated R for language and brief sexuality
Put crassly, Rachel Getting Married is like a 2 hour episode of The Office without any of the humor. Unpleasant, uncomfortable, and even seat-squirmingly painful to watch, it is neither funny, adorable, nor particularly heartwarming. (despite what the blatantly misleading marketing campaign would have you believe) But it is the best work director Jonathan Demme has done since Silence of the Lambs as well as being, hands down, one of the best films of 2008.
Anne Hathaway as Kym, a recovering addict.
Anne Hathaway demolishes her Princess-next-door image from the first chain smoking frame as Kym, a junkie fresh off a 9-month stint in rehab with a disposition to match her attractive “pastime.” She’s off to her sister’s wedding to spread goodwill and cheer, although bride-to-be Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) doesn’t quite see it that way. Unresolved tensions and repressed secrets come packed in Kym’s baggage, and what better time than a wedding to air out all that rotting laundry? I’ve always liked Hathaway, but I never knew she had this in her. It’s the kind of performance that irrevocably alters the trajectory of a career, like The Accused for Jodie Foster or Mullholland Dr. for Naomi Watts.
Weddings are a favorite item in Hollywood’s grabbag-’o-clichés, second only to “high concept lie a relationship must overcome” and “creepy whispering child.” Screenwriter Jenny Lumet (daughter to, yup, Sydney Lumet) uses this cliche for a foundation but builds upon it the most naturalistic, intimate, and razor-sharp portrait of familial suffering since In the Bedroom. Initially I assumed the effortless rapport between the characters was produced by Mike Leigh-style scripting, a product of improvisation rather than a screenwriter’s mind, but Jonathan Demme has stated that the majority of the script, including Kym’s stomach-churning rehearsal dinner toast, is word for word what Lumet put on the page. If that’s the case, bravo, standing ovation, encore please. It’s brilliant, nuanced work, guaranteed to net her an Oscar nom this year if not a win.
Demme compliments the in-the-moment script with fly-on-the-wall filmmaking, employing cinema vérité camerawork that can distract, (pop zooms and low-fi handycam footage being the greatest offenders) but overwhelmingly enables the audience to participate, like voyeuristic second cousins once removed, in the emotional inferno erupting on-screen. As Kym and Rachel and their parents (played by Bill Irwin and Debra Winger, heartrending performances both) nastily pick the scabs off one another’s long buried wounds, the film becomes very hard to watch. Literally. Much of the time I was curled up in my seat in the fetal position, jacket over my head, peeking out through a slit, physically squirming at the rawness on display, more horrified at the words these people would speak to one another than any blood or viscera the horror genre could ever produce.
You'll want one of these after the film is over.
Much of the film’s effectiveness is due to Demme and Lumet’s stubborn unwillingness to choose sides. Your sympathies arc back and forth between parties, each character endearing themselves to you before provoking anger minutes later. Kym’s passive aggressive assaults initially disgust before a regret-tinged confession in an AA meeting frames her insecurities in an entirely new light; others go through a similar metamorphosis. Film, by its very nature, requires you to form judgments, but unlike the majority of cinema that spoon feeds you ready-made conclusions, Rachel Getting Married constantly forces you to reevaluate. Like The Wire, nothing is simple and, more often than not, things will end badly.
“Enjoy” is not the right word to apply to Rachel Getting Married; “endure” might be more appropriate. But this is powerful, compelling cinema from craftsmen working at the top of their game. It’s a career redefiner for one woman and a career starter for another, and this critic, for one, is eager to see what they do next.
on Nov 08 2008 @ 2:23 pm 1. Andrew Wyatt said …
Bravo, Evan. It seems as though you responded much more strongly to the searing interpersonal elements than I did, but their potency and the deft manner in which Demme and Lumet present them are definitely one part of the film’s appeal. However, I noticed that you didn’t mention the counterpoint to the acidic family drama: the endearing and raucous events of the wedding itself, from the rehearsal dinner to the ceremony to the reception (not to mention that perplexing, maddeningly charming dishwasher scene.) The way the film flitted between these elements–the bitter soap opera on one hand, and on the other the mock home video of the most diverse, outrageous, fun-loving wedding I’ve ever seen–seems to embody the film’s conception of family as a Jekyll-and-Hyde creature.
My review here.
on Nov 08 2008 @ 3:26 pm 2. Sam Juliano said …
Wonderful review Evan. And I concur with the summary judgement and star rating. Yes, this is surely Demme’s best work in years, and one of the year’s best films. The fact that Lumet and Demme refuse to take sides is of course a major attribute, but there are a number of great scenes, that you accurately pinpoint, and yes much it does resemble ‘cinema verite’ which adds to the urgency and immediacy of the proceedings, allowing one’s emtions to be further affected. Hathaway (as you mention) delivers an extraordinary performance, as do Rosemary De Witt and Debra Winger.
This is actually the greatest wedding film ever made, and that’s no small achievment.
on Nov 08 2008 @ 3:46 pm 3. Joseph said …
Sounds great. I’ve been wanting to see this one for a while.
on Nov 08 2008 @ 4:06 pm 4. Luke Harrington said …
Wait, wait…better than Made of Honor???
on Nov 08 2008 @ 4:24 pm 5. Sam Juliano said …
LOL Luke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Nov 08 2008 @ 8:44 pm 6. Evan Derrick said …
Sam, greater even than Seven Brides For Seven Brothers?
And Andrew, it was something of a conscious decision not to mention those elements. Initially, when I started out as a film critic, I would comment on every item I could think about in my reviews, but as of late I’ve realized that method generates long, clunky reviews that can be a burden to read. Rather than cover every base, I try to narrow things down to the elements I felt most strongly about, and craft a tighter, more readable piece of film criticism.
With that said, I constantly felt the tension in the film, even in the “raucous” moments. The dishwasher scene was not at all charming to me; I was waiting for things to erupt yet again (which they did, in a manner of speaking). So I was always aware of the emotional undercurrents buried just beneath, even in scenes that were superficially “safe.”
on Nov 08 2008 @ 10:41 pm 7. Andrew Wyatt said …
Evan:
Absolutely. Not criticizing it as an oversight. I just think it’s a sign that Rachel is a rich film when two people can approach it from two distinct perspectives. I was struck by the way the two elements–family angst and joyous celebration–coexisted in the same film. You seemed most affected by the former, to the point where it was at the forefront of your (positive) thinking in this review. All in all, I think it’s a part of the appeal of Demme/Lumet’s realistic approach that it allows for viewers to appreciate the captured events from different angles.
on Nov 09 2008 @ 12:26 am 8. Evan Derrick said …
Not interpreted as such, Andrew. I was just using your comment to springboard into a deeper analyization of “why” I wrote the piece the way I did. You’re right, that is the mark of a great film – that different people can peel back different layers and find different hearts beating underneath.
on Nov 10 2008 @ 7:46 am 9. Nathan Keltner said …
Speaking of misleading marketing, Hulu is currently airing a commercial for this one in between several of the shows it hosts. If you have any experience with Hulu, you know you see the same commercial at every commercial break, so I did feel a bit beaten over the head with it.
If you took out the name of the film, I would have never guessed this review was at all related to the commercials I just saw yesterday. It looked like a cheerful, happy-go-lucky movie about a sister getting married.
Why portray this film as anything other than what it is? If it apparently has so much to stand on in its own right, I would think setting expectations and drawing the wrong crowd will only hurt the film. No?
on Nov 10 2008 @ 9:50 am 10. Evan Derrick said …
Good question. The short answer I believe is that the marketing department’s mission is to simply sell as many tickets as possible. They don’t care about the film itself, just about selling tickets to it. So each marketing campaign is a finely tuned machine designed to compel the most people possible to see the film. Obviously, in our current national crisis (although this applies almost all of the time), people don’t want to see a downer. They go to the movies to forget their worries, get lost in light entertainment. So you get happy images of Anne Hathaway, beautiful wedding toasts, dancing, frolicking, joy joy joy joy. The marketing department doesn’t care if you get burned, or if they’ve misrepresented the film – they just want your $8.50 and then they’re done with you.
on Nov 10 2008 @ 11:08 am 11. Rick Olson said …
From your write-up, it sounds like some of the Bergman I’ve seen, like “Scenes from a Marriage” or “Cries and Whispers,” where the family members say the most despicable things to one another, and the emotions are always naked and raw.
Fine piece, Evan.
on Nov 10 2008 @ 1:52 pm 12. Sam Juliano said …
Rick:
Even more than Bergman in this particular instance would be Tomas Vinterberg’s THE CELEBRATION, which Demme’s film seems to emulate in a good sense of course. But the Bergman tie-in in an excellent one.
on Nov 12 2008 @ 1:59 pm 13. Daniel said …
A fantastic review, to be sure. All I could say about it was that it was a well-made movie that I really didn’t like. If Oscar does rear his head, I hope he looks at Lumet over Hathaway. Not that she was in any way bad, but I didn’t feel like this was as much of a stretch as I expected. In fact I’d almost rather see her again in Brokeback Mountain.
on Nov 12 2008 @ 6:52 pm 14. K. Bowen said …
Evan, great review. And congratulations on the insight about brevity. Thinking like a newsman now.
You don’t always have to tighten things. Sometimes it’s worth writing a little more. But it’s a good way to approach it.
By the way, I think the film struck me as funnier on the second viewing. The first time is such a powerful emotional experience. Some people hate the extended music; I was happy it gave me time to compose myself.
on May 29 2011 @ 2:24 pm 15. Fred Durst said …
Some truly rattling work on behalf of the owner of this internet site , dead great articles .