Marie & Bruce

I don't quite know what this was about - some sort of the NYC, Woody Allen-ish, 21c Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?

If that sounds like kind of a very distasteful concoction, that's what this is.

So, spare yourself - if you start watching it, despite this fair warning, don't kid yourself, as unlikeable as it is even in the first 10 minutes, trust me, it doesn't get better.

Strange 2004 character study "Marie And Bruce" spends a day with 'quirky' NY couple Julianne Moore & Matthew Broderick - both apparently on the spectrum (or mentally ill?). They express their frustrations & resentments with each other to each other & the camera as they go about their weird ways (with friends like Bob Balaban) including at a party (with guests like Julie Haggerty) and at dinner (where Griffin Dunne's another diner). It's unclear what director Tom Cairns intended with this the second of his three movies, which he co-wrote with Wallace Shawn (on whose play it's based). While well performed & occasionally amusing, it's just plain bizarre.

Still can not believe I managed to see this movie without falling asleep. I think it was because it contained some traditional Portuguese music, which gives it an exotic and unusual touch. At the beginning of the movie I thought that Laurie Anderson would have anything to do with it, the music of Mark De Gli Antoni and some of the text recalls her albums! I noticed that the Art Direction is made by someone with a Portuguese name which may explain the presence of "fado" (the traditional Portuguese music). Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick give their best in these crazy, unusual and pointless roles in a movie full of pointless and pretentious scenes and narrative solutions. I imagine the authors with a glass in their hands at any party full of New York intellectuals saying that the public is ignorant and does not understand a work of art like this... Who knows?

As a young man, I first saw "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?" and was aghast at such vituperative enmity shared by a married couple. As years passed, I understood that this shocking portrayal by Taylor and Burton (George & Martha) of a dysfunctional couple was just one way some couples manifest their undeniable love for each other. There is much drama and intentional pain to be inflicted upon each other to assuage their sado-masochistic tendencies. In the end, after bringing others down to their level of marital martial arts, they survive because they truly love each other. To outsiders, they express in in such an unpalatable way. On the other hand, "Marie & Bruce", while similar to George & Martha, with Marie's hateful and vituperative harangues (especially in public) against Bruce, who responds to her with indelicate personal thoughts about other women's tighter vaginas,etc., demonstrates a marital bond more consistent with the Generation X'ers propensity to see everything from ones own selfish and hedonistic point of view that leaves little room for even a flicker of true love within their marital foundation. Perhaps "M&B" reflects another casualty of our society as our moral-ethical boundaries have degenerated since post WWII changes in our society. This marriage is definitely worse that George and Martha's as there is no love residing anywhere behind their dysfunctional behavior. Even worse, Bruce takes the milquetoast approach as he receives his wife's spewings and calls her "darling" a million times in a demonstration of appeasement while he seeks the love he is missing from his wife through sexual fantasies with strange women and almost latent homosexual fulfillment with his lunch buddy, Frank.

Marie and Bruce may represent the decline of dysfunctional marriages to an even lower point today than the Baby Boomer's era. There is no redeeming basis for this marriage to have ever occurred. The lack of intellectual capacity in M&B (as evidenced by the banal conversations at Frank's party) compared to George and Martha and friends is pertinent to today's minds as they proceed through trials and tribulations of marriage. The utter lack of any fundamental basis of love throughout M&B's marriage in today's arena may indeed reflect the lack of intellectual development, hedonism, amorality, and many other missing elements of our former culture that seems more prevalent in today's society. Marriage, even if practiced dysfunctionally, seems to be far more absurd and disgusting when there is no development of any basic love concept all while selfish,non-intellectual, mundane, banal, and all other dark forces have become so influential in shaping personality. I'll take George and Martha any day because I know they, at the very core, loved each other very deeply. Chazz

Wallace Shawn, the author of "Marie and Bruce", who wrote the original play in which this film is based on, is a man whose work in the theater leaves a lot to be desired. I don't wish anyone the experience we had with a play he co-wrote with a brother and that was seen at the Mineta Lane Theater in New York about three years ago, in which the audience kept leaving the performance because it was insufferable. This same quality can be said about this adaptation of yet another one of his works for the theater.

Directed by Tom Cairns, who also translated the material for the screen, shows us a couple of misfits that have been together far too long and would have been better off dissolving their marriage some time ago. The main attraction for watching the picture was Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick, both great actors that put in a brave appearance to be in front of the camera playing these people. One wonders why hasn't Marie left Bruce a long time before? It's easier to see why Bruce has stuck to the situation because he doesn't have much to offer anyone else in her right mind.

The film can infuriate would be viewers who would not have enough patience to sit right through it.