Les Berkman se séparent

The opening scene hits us with a bunch of characters who are so unlikeable that you may wonder what's the point in watching their lives for 81 minutes. In hindsight, and after watching the DVD interview with writer/director Noah Baumbach, I'm sure this was deliberate. By disliking (or rather disconnecting from) the characters at the outset, the audience can take a more objective, emotionless view of this dysfunctional family--much the same way the family approaches itself.

So don't expect many weepy scenes where you say to yourself, "I feel exactly like that character!" Because unless you're an egotistical snob of a father who ironically swears like a common sailor at his kids, or unless you're the cluelessly devoted son who parrots everything the father says, or the passive-aggressive mother who has affairs rather than confront her marital problems, or the younger son who seems pretty cool until he inexplicably starts doing disgusting things in the library (and I mean disgusting!), then I don't think you'll immediately associate with any character in the film. Not the way you might in a standard Hollywood crowd pleaser.

If you can make it past that, "The Squid and the Whale" becomes a thoroughly engaging, entertaining, and at times funny experience. It kept me riveted from start to finish, and I found myself wishing it had been longer.

A word about the humor: don't expect any big gags. In fact, in the interview Noah talks about how he had to tell the actors *not* to read their lines as if they're funny. He didn't intend it to be a comedy, but still (owing largely to the fantastic deadpan performances by Jeff Daniels & Jesse Eisenberg) you might find yourself cracking up at how plain bizarre everything is. Jeff Daniels (the father) in particular plays such a satirical caricature of a horrible parent that there's no other way to interpret his character than: a clown.

Something that has to be mentioned is the setting & time period of this film. Brooklyn 1986. Although I'm not a Brooklynite, I can speak as an 80s kid who loved all the minor references... clothes, hairstyles, Burger King collectible glasses at the dinner table, and the music! They picked a few gems I probably haven't heard since '86. All of this adds tremendous authenticity to the story and takes you on a sort of fantasy ride. It's hard to believe they got 21st century Brooklyn to look like 1986 on a small indie budget of $1.5 million, but I thought it was flawless.

On a filmmaking level, I noticed some cute nods to the French New Wave school of film (handheld cameras swinging back & forth for jarring effect à la "Jules & Jim" by Truffaut) and a general Godard-ish, brooding vibe to the whole presentation while not afraid to show bright, vibrant scenes. Whether or not you're a fan of New Wave, if you like unconventional camera work you'll probably get a kick out of Noah's approach.

Film I would compare this to are the excellent "City Island" which is on the lighter side, "The Savages" which is on the darker side, and "The Beaver" which is on the mildly psychotic side. Don't hesitate to see any one of them if you get the chance.

More acutely than I've experienced in a long time, this film captures the process of personality inheritance within families. The interaction/influence between Bernard and Walt is almost painful to watch at times, but it's completely rich. Beyond just that father/son dynamic, the story is so poignant without ever getting sappy - a true accomplishment for a family drama involving divorce. Nothing hits you over the head. Nothing seems too forced. While there's plenty of confusion, discomfort, and alienation, a sense of love shines through, and I couldn't help but get attached to all of the characters. I recommend this film unconditionally.

This movie is a good film, that's for sure. The actors perform brilliantly and the script is original and touching. However, all this is boring.

I guess people with an interest in the social aspect of one's life will find this very nice and good. For the parents (and children) who are on the same path as the character, should they choose to really understand the movie, it will be a learning experience that will save them from a lot of pain and anguish.

OK, the guy is a cowardly hypocrite that hides behind his intellectual aura tons of frustration and, surely enough, stupidity. The woman leaves a life of discomfort and maybe even fear, but lacks the courage to do anything about it. She cheats on the husband then leaves clues to it, so that the responsibility of the divorce would fall on him. The sons pick sides based on age, both mimicking behaviour that they don't understand yet, and thus making fools of themselves. Very weird and socially tense situations, but that's it. After the first half an hour you know everything there is to know, only the awkward situations remain, in a hostile, not humorous manner.

The ending is as devoid of resolution as the entire content. The problems are there, you know what, where, when and how, but there is no solution. In the end, the film is nothing but a portrait, you either like it or you don't.

I mused as I watched this movie, they were married in 1969, and 17 years later, in 1986, they found themselves only able to get a divorce. I married in 1968, and 17 years later, in 1985, I was also getting a divorce. Like that couple, I don't think I ever knew for sure why.

Jeff Daniels is Bernard Berkman, professor and author who was absolutely manipulative, of his students, his wife, their sons -- whatever it took to get past the moment. He loved no one, not even himself, and got great joy out of such conquests as beating his young son in ping-pong. And giving his teenage son advice to play the field, women are objects for the pleasure of men.

Laura Linney is Bernard's wife Joan. After she found out that she could be a successful writer, she began to tire of her husband's overbearing ways. But she too was weak, and had been having an affair for several years. That they broke up was not the fault of either. They grew in different directions and were unable to see the situation realistically. That probably is the most common symptom of this kind of breakup.

Caught in the middle are the two sons, Walt and Frank. Walt, the teen, idolizes his dad, and in a very shallow manner talks scholarly about things he has not taken the time to read. He "composes" a song for a school talent show, wins the prize, but it is discovered that he took a song that had already been written. When asked why, he responded, "I could have written that song. The fact that someone else did was just a technicality."

For the most part the movie is very unusual, but also very well written and interesting. Here we have these flawed people trying to navigate through this family mess, and somehow they seem they will survive. It has a nice touch of realism through it, and is also very funny at times.

The title comes from's Walt's fear, as a small child, of the squid and whale exhibit at the museum.

Although I liked this movie, I found it disturbing. They all need counseling, especially the kids. The younger one had some behaviors that made me wonder about a serial killer in the making. Luckily, he didn't seem to have the mental make up for that. Neither kid was on a path to becoming a "healthy, functioning" adult. The end was slightly abrupt and left me feeling conflicted and a bit disturbed.