Take This Waltz

Sarah Polley proves her impressive directorial and screen writing debut, 2006's "Away from Her" starring a luminous, Oscar-nominated Julie Christie as an Alzheimer's patient, was no fluke with this incisive look at a most inchoate love triangle. With a title taken from Leonard Cohen's cultish song, this clear-eyed yet melancholic 2012 drama once again showcases Polley's prodigious acumen in capturing the complexity of adult relationships without casting blame or judgment on the parties involved. The focal point of the triangle is 28-year-old Margot, an aspiring writer from Toronto on an assignment in Nova Scotia to write the copy for a travel brochure on historic Louisbourg. There she meets Daniel, also from Toronto where he is a struggling artist and a rickshaw driver. An attraction is almost immediate but not consummated. When they fly home on the same plane, Margot discovers he lives just across the street from her, which complicates matters since she's been married for five years to Lou, a cookbook author specializing in chicken dishes. Their marriage is comfortable, and their interactions reflect a lived-in familiarity marked by cute practical jokes and quirky riffs of humor.

But what Margot sees in Daniel is something that's been missing in her life, a sexual spark that excites her, even though she dares not act upon it since she really does love Lou in spite of his foibles - including a certain apathy about their relationship that he thinks is perfectly normal. She could see spending the rest of her life with Lou, but she wonders if he is her soul-mate or whether it's worth the risk to find out if Daniel is really the one. Blinded by desires she had yet to tap in her marriage, Margot knows if she acts upon those feelings, there will come some point where she'll have to make a hard decision between Lou and Daniel. Michelle Williams captures Margot's inner conflict with palpable empathy as you see her character expose her thoughts in moments of quiet in which she is the harshest judge of her actions. It's a shining performance which compares favorably to her evocative Marilyn Monroe in "My Week with Marilyn". There is a deliberate vagueness to the two men. As Daniel, Luke Kirby ("Mambo Italiano") manages to convey the lure of "the other man" without coming across as despicable even though it's clear he wants her from afar. At the same time, it's clear that Margot and Daniel have little in common, and they make you wonder how sustainable their relationship could be.

Seth Rogen does something surprising in this film – he acts. He still doesn't stray that far away from his shaggy-dog comic persona, but he realistically shows how Lou's contentment and impassivity bring Margot both lasting security and unresolvable fear and longing. Similarly, Sarah Silverman makes her few scenes count as Lou's plainspoken sister Geraldine, who is married with two kids and an alcoholic just out of rehab, especially when she tells Margot what she thinks of her ultimate decision. That Polley can coax such fine dramatic work from Rogen and Silverman is a credit to her growing confidence as a filmmaker. As a native Canadian, she also presents Toronto as a setting with its own unique identity (versus other directors who use it as a double for New York or Chicago), and her cinematographer Luc Montpellier brings a lushness to the images that adds to the intoxication Margot is feeling. There are still flaws – the ramshackle pace adds to an already lengthy 116-minute running time, and the climactic time-lapse montage feels out- of-place for a film that had tread so lightly before. Regardless, this film should play on a double bill with David Lean's "Brief Encounter" to show how mores have evolved about infidelity over seventy years. Whatever the outcome may be, the bottom line is that there are no easy answers.

OK it's not as bad as all that -- it is sort-of OK -- but I had to say it. I'm probably not the first.

This is basically a short film on infidelity, dragged out to a couple of hours. It's not terrible, but it's also not good.

The film has its good points, of course. I found the cinematography to be great, for example. Particularly the shots in and around water were very effective, and showcase the use of film to communicate without words. But the fact that I'm noticing the cinematography first tells you that the story isn't really there.

I thought the acting was believable. Everyone performed well in their roles, as far as I can tell. Seth, Luke, and Michelle were good choices for the triangle. That said, I am confused about casting not just one but two popular comedians against type. It made me question what I was supposed to be seeing. I'm not sure I figured it out.

For me I attribute the problems to editing and writing.

The story didn't provide anyone for me to root for, identify with, or even hate. I didn't really care for any of the characters. I like these actors, but I found these characters annoying to varying degrees, but not so annoying as to be detestable. I just didn't wish to spend any more time with any of them than I had to. Perhaps if I could recognize in them any motivation for their actions (or lack thereof) it might be different. I compare this with The Postman Always Rings Twice, where understandable things happen, and lead to a more satisfying (but too preachy-perfect) ending.

The long silences here are not deep and meaningful. They're just long. I figure the film could be cut by half an hour, and not lose much beyond silence or small talk. In fact, even the end could be lopped off. There were several points where I thought it was over, but it kept going. What's odd is that there are some scenes where random half-second cuts are made, music-video-style, but real cuts to speed it along aren't made. I'm certain you could cut another hour or so and turn it into a really great short. There's nothing wrong with that, if telling the story with emotion is the goal.

The tie-in to Leonard Cohen's song seemed forced. I cringed. When I think about that scene, it feels to me like someone decided we needed a cryptic song by a Canadian poet to name the film after. I don't feel that any of the characters in the film are devoted Leonard Cohen fans.

Overall, I wouldn't recommend this film, but neither would I say to avoid it. It will surely be on the The Movie Network (among others) in Canada, since they apparently helped pay for it. The best place to see it is therefore probably cable or satellite.

I watched this film at it's premiere last night and found it quite entertaining and insightful. This was a film about the path that Margot's (Michelle Williams) emotions take as she struggles with the question of fulfilling the parts of her marriage that are missing through infidelity. Michelle gives a very inspiring performance as her character progresses....completely letting the audience in on every facet of her internal struggle and the toll it takes on her. There are times when you empathize and root for her, and times when you shake your head and wonder why she can't see what the audience sees.

Seth Rogen is surprisingly effective in his role as the geeky, but loving husband. I found myself constantly rooting for him. He did a great job of making his character imperfect but likable, but most importantly, believable.

Sarah Silverman delivered nicely in her role, especially near the end of the film. If there was a weak link, it was Luke Kirby, who never seemed to show much emotion at all, in a role where there was such potential for it.

Sarah Polley's writing and directing was excellent, although the pacing was at times a bit erratic. She managed to really capture what life is really like at times, without going over the top. By celebrating the little joys in life, she garnered sympathy for the main characters and the situations that developed, without forcing it. She also showed Toronto off very nicely, which was a bonus.

In all, if you're into character driven films, this is a very good one. The best part of it all, though, is Michelle Williams performance.

This film shouldn't work nearly as well as it does. Take This Waltz centres around a two-suitors plot that was tired a century ago, takes place in a hipster-utopia version of Toronto, has multiple comedic actors who've worn out their welcome doing Serious Roles, and its characters are either selfish or dull. But Take This Waltz also has a kind of magic that can wash over the most jaded cinema viewer and make you forget that you've seen it all before.

Maybe it's Sarah Polley's direction, or maybe it's the brilliant performance of Michelle Williams that makes her character likable against all odds. Maybe the thematic statement about the perils of looking for adventure and the need for constant romance is something that we need affirmed more often against the tide of romcoms and gooey melodramas. Maybe it's just that I really want to live in hipster- utopia-Toronto. But this film stuck with me for days afterwards, its scenes playing over and over in my mind, blotting out all the rest of the disposable entertainment. There are so many indelible images here: a public shower scene which plays pranks on the male gaze, that goofy but somehow powerful 360-degree-rotation montage, and of course the final scene, a coda that grants its central character and us along with her a moment of unmediated joy. And it's that joy that the film understands as being something we maybe have to pursue no matter what its cost. Michelle Williams' abashed smile gives us a taste of that adventure, and like the rest of the movie, it's damn hard to resist.

On my first viewing of Take This Waltz, after the film was over, I said in confidence and self assuredness to the people I went to see the film with, that I did not like it. However a strange thing happened. I saw the film and was unable to write my review of it until now and in that delay of time I started thinking of the film more and more and it seemed to resonate and stay with me and there were certain scenes and just whole issues, or ideals that were brought up during the film that I gave second thought to and reconsidered. Having written my review of Take This Waltz, immediately after watching it, I would have probably have given it a rating of 6 out of 10, but as I have thought and pondered over the characters and meaning of the film and just how it makes more sense to me now and in a sense has also grown on me, I now give the film my definitive rating of 8 out of 10. On first viewing there were some things I really liked about the film such as the interesting yet hauntingly beautiful colour contrast to the homes, interiors of the homes and even what the characters wore. It gave the film a distinct look and I admired it for that. I also appreciated that we could have a serious film about people in their 20's with no use whatsoever of cell phones, the internet, or any type of social media devices. It just felt more real having not used those things and avoided being too commercial as well. The one thing that I think really got me about the first viewing of the film was how I really did not like the main character Margot, played by Michelle Williams. I found it very irritating and awkward to the point of being irritating. She didn't seem to know how to act, or behave in certain situations and when she did speak, or try to live her dreams of fantasies it all just felt and looked terribly awkward and clumsy. Take for example her baby talk with her husband, Lou. It seemed so childish and really grated on my nerves. Also the fact that she was so indecisive about everything as well. Also on first viewing I felt that perhaps not all of the characters were as developed as they could have been and overall at the end of the film I think I got what director/writer Sarah Polley was trying to say, but at that point I was not interested anymore and I did not care either. Having thought about the film for a few days I came to realize that Michelle Williams' character Margot, is not as annoying, or irritating as she once seemed and even if she is a little bit, I could now understand why. I think the point was to show a character such as Margot, who is really indecisive about life and the choices that she makes and also shows how insecure and unhappy she is. I think Margot, was really stuck in a situation that became routine and comfortable for her, but she is a restless character always wondering if there is something new and better for her elsewhere. I think Margot's awkwardness as well as nervousness shows because of how insecure and uncomfortable with life and making decisions is hard for her. She wants to do what is right, but not destroy everything she has at the same time. It also lead me to think that I have known women like Margot, and they behaved in a similar such manner as she does in the film and for the exact same reasons that I mentioned above. It is not necessarily a character flaw, but perhaps just a weakness and a stumbling block that one needs to work on. The other characters later on seemed more well developed than on first glance and the film certainly does give a lot of food for thought. I literally spent days afterwards thinking about this film and some of the powerful and heartbreaking images in it. The film is a fairly depressing watch in a lot of ways, but I could respect that about the film because any film dealing with such subject matter, should be serious and take their character's feelings and emotions to heart and all that is here. The film does still have some flaws with it's pacing and there are times where it gets swept up in it's melancholy and it can tend to drag a little bit, but there is still enough rewarding things on display here to be worth a watch, even if you have to think about the film a couple days after you watch it, or even have repeat viewings. Brave viewers should give the film a chance and think about what it says about loneliness, relationships and the myths we sometimes promise ourselves, but ultimately lie to each other and ourselves about. An intelligent and deeply thought out film worthy of an 8 out of 10 rating and not just a 6.