The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him

Honestly, I have never encountered a screening of such intensity and relativity to this day-to-day life and dogma governed charade.

What you as a viewer are about to encounter is a defiance against your deep down inner skeptical thoughts. For some, this might be perceived as an embodiment of pure heretics. But rest assure viewer, you might be a one who is objective in perspective, and ingest this screening as a wake-up call for what you are missing on in life, or... a certification for whatever life you lead with your significant other, for the latter I'm sure was not forced onto you but chosen, chosen by your true undeniable true tendencies.

Enjoy my dear viewer this piece of art from whatever display box you have at home.

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby…Him (2013)

This is part of a two segment movie about a couple recovering from tragedy (losing a young child) told from the point of view of the mother and father separately. Like "Her," this one is mostly about the protagonist, with some key elements from the relationship unravelling. And like "Her" there is very little about the grieving or the actual tragedy. We are supposed to be dropped into their lives long enough later to be in their individual recoveries.

The father here is James McAvoy, and he's good, but he doesn't have the intensity and range of Jessica Chastain, who carries the "Her" movie so well. The supporting cast is thinner here, too—Viola Davis makes only a tangential appearance, and there is little of Isabelle Hupert and none of William Hurt, who both make "Her" rather special. So here we have the somewhat clichéd "friends at a bar" as McAvoy's clan, and it's nothing much.

It's tough to judge all of this because I saw "Her" first and so the plot itself was new to me then, and here it is simply the retelling of the same story. So what was most interesting of all was the re-telling of the overlapping sections, seeing the events from different eyes. This wasn't pushed hard, which is fine (this is no "Rashoman"), and so it just makes the pair of movies gel.

Beware of the third movie, however—which has the suffix: "Them." I haven't see it (and won't), but it is apparently a mash of the first two, a shortened single version that apparently lacks the potentially probing aspects of the two halves seen singley or together. The two separate movies are sometimes shown or released as a marathon version that is not the same as the shortened, combined Them. So see one of the two single versions and go from there.

Advice: "Him" alone is not as satisfying as "Her," for commons reasons like the depth of acting as well as the range of characters. Chastain's version is better by far, but if you do see "Her" first, I think "Him" adds another layer that is satisfying, and not redundant except in just the right moments.

It's very odd how much The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Her gets right that Him just can't measure up to. I'm not sure whether it's because I watched it second, but it's way more clumsily executed. While it does pay off a lot of things set up in Her (and I imagine it'll work vice versa) when it offers an alternate perspective on a scene, that's its only strength. Where Her approached sappiness with its insights on romance, Him too often breaches that mark. It's a more lightweight film, which comes with its own delights with Bill Hadar and that subplot, but moments which elicited tears in Her revisited here had little effect. I'm sure that's not a case of diminishing returns. McAvoy is reliably great, not quite as good as Chastain in Her, but again he bolsters the material. The problem with this portion of the pair is that it paints Eleanor Rigby in a very unappealing light, one I hadn't even considered with Her. Here, I don't see why he's chasing her so much. Nevertheless, Him is still a very good film for when it does hit the spot, just doesn't match its counterpart.

7/10

The sadness of being an incorrigible completist, I have to finish all these three films before writing my review, Ned Benson's ambitious feature-length debut is a post-trauma story of a young couple Conor (McAvoy) and Eleanor (Chastain) in New York after losing their child in an unspecified accident, HIM centres on Conor and HER centres on Eleanor in the same time period, then interweaves these two versions together, there arrives THEM, one can get an overall view of their paralleled life. So basically, I have watched the same movie twice, and certain scenes three times where the path of Conor and Eleanor converges.

The premise is soundingly intriguing, as often cornily referred as two separate cerebral hemispheres, the film allows viewers to observe how men and women think and act differently towards the same scenario, in this case, a heartbroken tragedy. In HIM, the movie starts with one of their most intimate memory before their bereavement, an inadvertent thrill in their ordinary life sparks strong romance with Conor amorously says: "There is only one heart in this body, please have mercy on me". Then it jumps to several months of the aftermath, Eleanor uses an extreme method to declare that their life can not sustain as the status quo, they need to take a break. Conor doesn't understand why she needs her alone-time for her grievance, he is equally heartbroken, but he is ready to move on, leaving the tragedy behind with a seal on it, not to mention and keeps living on afterwards. He opens a bar with his best friend Stuart (Hader) and a flirty barmaid Alexis (Arianda) who is ready to "falling in love with him madly if he allows her". Meanwhile his father Spencer (Hinds) owns a successful restaurant named after Conor's mother, whom he dumped ages ago, it is also a thorny decision for him whether or not to swallow his pride to admit failure and take the restaurant inasmuch as his bar is on the brink of bankrupt, it is a privileged struggle as a rich kid's blues.

In HER, no romantic prologue, Eleanor is introduced in her abrupt suicidal behaviour, then she returns to her bourgeoisie parents living in the suburb (played by Hurt and Huppert, he is a university professor and she is French), she goes back to the college and takes a class of professor Lillian Friedman (Davis), before long Conor finds out her whereabouts, stalks her in the street, in the classroom and eagerly to reconnect. As Hurt carefully phrases "Tragedy is a foreign country, we don't know how to talk to the natives", Conor's tentative makeup doesn't work, Eleanor needs to be over-indulged in the past for some time before finally moving forward, plus, she can spend all the time she wants in Paris, to heal her wounds, after a whimsical but failed reconnection during a pouring rain and a vis-a-vis opening-up in the middle of the night, it is rather tedious for her to realise that she should take a real break out of the Tri-state area. The disparity erected between each and every individuals cannot be compromised, only when they arrive in the same page with the same pace, they may have a chance to start anew as a couple.

As often as he can, Benson intends to throw snappy verbal rejoinders to sound posh or vivacious, but most of the time they are ill-placed ("Now YOU sound maternal" throwaway) and uninspired, as most of the dialogues verge on beating around the bush either without any substantial function or being painstakingly predictable. Yet the two leads is recommendable in any rate, so it is safe to say the film is perfect for McAvoy and Chastain's stalwarts, both set off a full gamut of emotional overhaul and not to mention many close-ups to let their fans luxuriate in the idolatry. Among the eclectic supporting cast, Huppert radiates in every scene simply by holding a glass of red wine in her hand, and Davis thrusts her raw gravitas into her casual bantering with her THE HELP (2010, 8/10) co- star, as an outsider, she is the one who pierces through the surface without any scruples, only if she could have more screen time in it.

The indie soundtrack is an understandable trapping of the prevalent mumblecore output, it's ambient, moody and meditative, tailor-made to outline the disposition of the storyline. Collectively speaking, the films attempt to be artistic and unique, it could have hit the bull- eye with all such a talented group, only if it could subtract the permeating tint of narcissism, and conjure up some more salient epiphany. At last, the THEM version abridges some minor sequences and merges HIM and HER with an intact take on the proceedings. There is no new scenes added, so one can choose to watch HIM and HER, or THEM, either is sufficiently competent to disclose its allure and drawbacks.

Saw this last night (I consider it one film, saw both parts back to back in that order). Such a lovely, touching film, and not at all what I expected when I first heard about the project. First off, I just want to say that I find the title really gimmicky and misleading. Okay, sure, it's technically not "wrong", but it just sounds like a lead-on for something it's not, such an easy way to grab audience's attention.

The basic plot point that leads to the whole film has been done before (Rabbit Hole did it just a few years ago) and the whole film isn't trying to be anything other than an honest, captivating look at two characters' lives and the way they deal with this tragedy. For some reason I thought it was going to be this really daring film. I was wrong and I knew almost immediately, but I didn't mind. The script is fantastic, and the two leads superb. McAvoy actually impresses more in Her, and as a whole he's not really in Chastain's level, but he has some really strong scenes and as of now I'd have him in my Top 10 for Lead Actor (and he's in my top 3 for Filth, which is a better performance but an inferior film in every way). What can I say about Chastain? Her best performance alongside Zero Dark Thirty, and may very well be even better for the fact that she's able to play a much more rounded character in terms of emotions. What I've always found incredibly impressive about her as an actress is that, not only is she technically impeccable in all her work to a fault like so many other acclaimed actresses are, but she's also able to inhabit a character fully to the point that her technicality doesn't feel like we're watching her at a distance emotionally. That's a problem I have with some actresses working right now. They can be great, yeah, but can also hit notes technically well while feeling too much like it's all for show at times. I've never had that problem with Chastain. Her work here is among the best of the year and it's a shame that neither her or the fantastic film she's in are even getting mentions from critic bodies. If its because of the stupid "Them" decision, then what a shame... but it's most likely not, and that's an even bigger shame