Nocturnal Animals (Tom Ford, 2016)

[Apple Peeler]

Is Susan presented as a sympathetic figure? I don't think so. Certainly that's not how I responded to her. I found this film to be supremely cold and cruel, and thought that bitterness rippled out into every character in the film.

I loved it, personally. It's the recent film I've found myself thinking about the most, though this in part is due to having talked with several people who outright loathed it. People seem to be responding badly to the individual stories - the real world is too obvious, the fictional one too familiar. I don't disagree, exactly; I just don't care. The meat of the film is in the ways they overlap, the way the details in one reverberate in the other. In this sense, the film is subtle and strange. Tony's guilt, for example, at not coming out from behind that rock when the killers called his name. I think there's real depth and brilliance in the way it weaves its story. Perhaps that's more down to Wright than it is to Ford, but again, I don't care. It's a wicked little movie.

[Brian C]

I certainly do not recall basing my disdain for Susan on her infidelity. My dislike for her as I alluded to previously comes from having her presented, manipulatively at that, as a sympathetic figure. Without being given anything internal to go on besides the superficial I have no patience for someone of her class background, having made the unkind choices she had made both personally and professionally (as evidenced by the ridiculous work place scenes with Jena Malone) feeling sad because the world has been unkind to them. Her guilt and disappointment is purely motivated by even more selfishness, i.e. her realization that her husband is a duplicitous, cold, arrogant philanderer of the most shameless kind. Moreover someone like Susan wouldn't even have bothered to open Edward's manuscript if she was in any way satisfied with her life. As a result I feel she and by extension Ford's film was completely disingenuous.

What would have made this film palatable id if any of these emotions were explored with any substance. A film like this year's Knight of Cups, which I defended on this forum against its many detractors, is similar in that the protagonist also hails from a place of privilege. The difference here is the reasons for Rick's sad emptiness are profoundly explored. I suppose in a sense the deeply personal nature of Malick's film alienates the majority, where as the surface level bullshit of Ford's most find a comfortable space.

It's hard not to read this as "I refuse to empathize with someone I feel superior to."

A big giveaway is that you're not really even critiquing the actual character of Susan, but rather "someone like Susan," or perhaps anyone with "her class background." It frankly sounds as though Ford failed some kind of criteria you have as to what's acceptable and what's not, and as a result you're looking for reasons to justify your pre-ordained dislike the film instead of engaging with it. Put another way, as someone who's not looking at the film through the same political lens you're viewing it through, your critiques don't really register.

Also ... your last line is very self-flattering. Congrats for staying above the "majority" fray, hope you're getting enough air up there.

[mfunk9786]

And despite the fact that it is about the upper crust, liberal elite class - it's a potboiler. And it isn't meant to either be overly complimentary or damning toward Adams' character because it's sort of besides the point. It strikes me as humorless (and perhaps an indication that watching films featuring this particular class of people might not be for you) to walk away angry at "people like" the characters and the quality of a fictional book (that we are never invited to read the prose of, mind you) instead of engaging with the film on its terms a little bit.

Is Susan presented as a sympathetic figure? I don't think so. Certainly that's not how I responded to her. I found this film to be supremely cold and cruel, and thought that bitterness rippled out into every character in the film.

While I agree with you about the altogether tone of the film, I think there's definitely something inherently tragic in a character who can see herself slipping into tendencies she finds repugnant about her own mother but almost powerless to stop them from taking hold. And then being confronted with the fact that she's driven much too far in this direction, and that she'll get some nasty tire damage if she ever tries to throw her car in reverse.

[DarkImbecile]

SpoilerShow

Why, in your view, is Adams' character an irredeemably horrible person because of an infidelity she committed in a relationship years before?

I certainly do not recall basing my disdain for Susan on her infidelity.

This is a tangent, but I don't think she committed any infidelity, unless I misread the flashbacks. She had another man take her to abort her husband's child, but I didn't think she was having an affair with him at the time.

[Brian C]

It's hard to imagine an Amy Adams character that I don't find inherently sympathetic. If you don't want an actor who can seem human and sympathetic even at her worst moments in your movie, you cast someone else.

[mfunk9786]

SpoilerShow

Why, in your view, is Adams' character an irredeemably horrible person because of an infidelity she committed in a relationship years before?

I certainly do not recall basing my disdain for Susan on her infidelity.

This is a tangent, but I don't think she committed any infidelity, unless I misread the flashbacks. She had another man take her to abort her husband's child, but I didn't think she was having an affair with him at the time.

SpoilerShow

I thought they had already taken up with one another, my mistake.

[Apple Peeler]

It's hard to imagine an Amy Adams character that I don't find inherently sympathetic. If you don't want an actor who can seem human and sympathetic even at her worst moments in your movie, you cast someone else.

I was responding to the claim that she is "presented, manipulatively at that, as a sympathetic figure".

If you are going to plead manipulatively for an audience's sympathy, you don't make any of the choices Ford makes in the framing story here. Of course Adams brings humanity to the role, but the film is by no means on her side.

[warren oates]

In a year of great releases from all over the world, this is a top contender for the worst new feature I've seen. God, what an insufferably pretentious bore this film is -- a hollow high sheen snoozefest endlessly impressed with it's own earnestness, mistaking superficial cliched depictions of violence and ennui for actual meaning, confusing lighting with atmosphere and showcasing some of the worst directing (all around but especially in terms of the most basic staging, blocking and action direction that I've seen in a long time). Not much in this film works the way its maker seems to be intending it, makes it mean what he wishes it would or his audience feel how we're supposed to feel -- from the much discussed opening images (more Matthew Barney-lite than Lynch) to the final utterly predictable resolutions of the various storylines. The film's narrative had a certain mystery and promise in the first half hour and I kept watching on the theory that "Surely, there must be more to it than this." But, alas, there never was.

[DarkImbecile]

The film's narrative had a certain mystery and promise in the first half hour and I kept watching on the theory that "Surely, there must be more to it than this." But, alas, there never was.

I wasn't nearly as unequivocally turned off by this as you were, but I have to admit that when it ended I was grasping for more significance than appears to have been offered. My initial thought in that direction was that

SpoilerShow

just as the novel's Tony eventually "redeems" his earlier weakness by confronting and killing his tormentor only to fatally wound himself in the process, Edward scrapes and claws his way past the weakness Susan sees in him to completing what at the very least is a novel she appreciates and respects (which he earlier says was all he wanted from her), and then kills himself upon receiving that vindication. After about a minute of consideration, I don't think there's any direct evidence to support that reading, but I think the impulse to scrounge for some kind of hidden meaning speaks to the empty-calorie feeling I was left with as the credits rolled.

[mfunk9786]

SpoilerShow

I think the idea that he killed himself is a pretty huge stretch. Why would Ford not take the opportunity to reveal that to us in some way? And why would he be so despondent (he has an adult daughter with Adams, it has been years since they've been together) about losing her still? If anything, if the book is received well, he'll have myriad opportunities to rub his success in her face in the years to come.

[DarkImbecile]

SpoilerShow

I think the idea that he killed himself is a pretty huge stretch. Why would Ford not take the opportunity to reveal that to us in some way? And why would he be so despondent (he has an adult daughter with Adams, it has been years since they've been together) about losing her still? If anything, if the book is received well, he'll have myriad opportunities to rub his success in her face in the years to come.

SpoilerShow

Like I said, I dropped the idea almost as soon as I had it because there's just not enough there beyond the assumption of some sort of parallel with the novel. Though it's not clear to me at all that the daughter she calls at the midpoint of the film is a product of her relationship with Edward; she aborted a pregnancy with him and then had a kid with him afterward? I assumed that was her child from her second marriage.

[warren oates]

SpoilerShow

Though it's not clear to me at all that the daughter she calls at the midpoint of the film is a product of her relationship with Edward; she aborted a pregnancy with him and then had a kid with him afterward? I assumed that was her child from her second marriage.

The point of that daughter is to have a visually rhymable ass, so that Ford can show us what an artiste he is.

[mfunk9786]

SpoilerShow

I think the idea that he killed himself is a pretty huge stretch. Why would Ford not take the opportunity to reveal that to us in some way? And why would he be so despondent (he has an adult daughter with Adams, it has been years since they've been together) about losing her still? If anything, if the book is received well, he'll have myriad opportunities to rub his success in her face in the years to come.

SpoilerShow

Like I said, I dropped the idea almost as soon as I had it because there's just not enough there beyond the assumption of some sort of parallel with the novel. Though it's not clear to me at all that the daughter she calls at the midpoint of the film is a product of her relationship with Edward; she aborted a pregnancy with him and then had a kid with him afterward? I assumed that was her child from her second marriage.

SpoilerShow

I assumed she didn't go through with the abortion after Edward saw her in the car? Just assumed it was a preliminary appointment of some kind once I saw the daughter.

[lacritfan]

SpoilerShow

Earlier she said she did the worst possible thing to Edward and in the car said she already regretted it so I figure it was Edward's child she aborted and the daughter is Hutton's.

[mfunk9786]

I need to see this damn thing again. My comprehension is all off. Thanks for the clarification. That makes his anger even more justifiable.

[Black Hat]

I certainly do not recall basing my disdain for Susan on her infidelity. My dislike for her as I alluded to previously comes from having her presented, manipulatively at that, as a sympathetic figure. Without being given anything internal to go on besides the superficial I have no patience for someone of her class background, having made the unkind choices she had made both personally and professionally (as evidenced by the ridiculous work place scenes with Jena Malone) feeling sad because the world has been unkind to them. Her guilt and disappointment is purely motivated by even more selfishness, i.e. her realization that her husband is a duplicitous, cold, arrogant philanderer of the most shameless kind. Moreover someone like Susan wouldn't even have bothered to open Edward's manuscript if she was in any way satisfied with her life. As a result I feel she and by extension Ford's film was completely disingenuous.

What would have made this film palatable id if any of these emotions were explored with any substance. A film like this year's Knight of Cups, which I defended on this forum against its many detractors, is similar in that the protagonist also hails from a place of privilege. The difference here is the reasons for Rick's sad emptiness are profoundly explored. I suppose in a sense the deeply personal nature of Malick's film alienates the majority, where as the surface level bullshit of Ford's most find a comfortable space.

It's hard not to read this as "I refuse to empathize with someone I feel superior to."

A big giveaway is that you're not really even critiquing the actual character of Susan, but rather "someone like Susan," or perhaps anyone with "her class background." It frankly sounds as though Ford failed some kind of criteria you have as to what's acceptable and what's not, and as a result you're looking for reasons to justify your pre-ordained dislike the film instead of engaging with it. Put another way, as someone who's not looking at the film through the same political lens you're viewing it through, your critiques don't really register.

Also ... your last line is very self-flattering. Congrats for staying above the "majority" fray, hope you're getting enough air up there.

I'm not sure how I can be accused of not engaging with a film I've written quite a bit about in these last two pages while also posing questions in an effort to perhaps finding out something about the film's merits from its fans that I clearly missed. I also wrote critically of Susan's character before classifying her in the post you quoted as the archetype she no doubt is. Perhaps my critiques don't register, but you're going to have to do better at explaining why than telling me I didn't really watch or understand the film because that's as condescending to me as you feel I'm being towards the film. Especially since I'm not the only one who was put off by it and its pretensions.

SpoilerShow

I thought they had already taken up with one another, my mistake.

I'm with you here.

SpoilerShow

If she wasn't having this affair then why was Jake G look as crushed as he did? Why did she Amy Adams panic? Her freak out looked to me as someone caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

[mfunk9786]

SpoilerShow

One guess as to why he looked so crushed is because she likely just aborted their child or was at least considering it in the form of visiting a clinic. It's no hand in the cookie jar, but it's something

[Black Hat]

SpoilerShow

Yeah but how would he know that upon seeing her? Seeing her in a car embracing another man on the other hand.

[leo_floyd]

SpoilerShow

I assumed she didn't go through with the abortion after Edward saw her in the car? Just assumed it was a preliminary appointment of some kind once I saw the daughter.

SpoilerShow

One even simpler question that scene raised for me was, how did Edward found out that she was on the clinic on the first place? Was he following her? Are we supposed to assume he was just passing by over there?

[mfunk9786]

We see very little of this stuff, but why is it so confounding to imagine there was snooping/information stumbled upon in the interim? It's a 30 second moment in a much wider reaching story.

[D50]

SpoilerShow

One even simpler question that scene raised for me was, how did Edward found out that she was on the clinic on the first place? Was he following her? Are we supposed to assume he was just passing by over there?

SpoilerShow

The movie starts out with Edward's pov following her, right up to the closed gates, with the second glare on the metal doors, where he later drops off the manuscript.

[leo_floyd]

SpoilerShow

One even simpler question that scene raised for me was, how did Edward found out that she was on the clinic on the first place? Was he following her? Are we supposed to assume he was just passing by over there?

SpoilerShow

The movie starts out with Edward's pov following her, right up to the closed gates, with the second glare on the metal doors, where he later drops off the manuscript.

Damn, I should rewatch this asap,

SpoilerShow

my only recolection from the beginning was the fat lady dancing and Amy at the art gallery, not that part you've mentioned.

[Brian C]

Maybe this movie is showing us a tragic mistake by Susan - she imagines Edward in the part of Tony, when he's actually Ray.

[R0lf]

This is probably reaching but another interpretation of the restaurant scene at the end

SpoilerShow

is that Susan never contacted Edward (they show her writing emails but she closes her laptop without sending them) and that Susan has made the decision that she is happy to be alone.

[DarkImbecile]

This is probably reaching but another interpretation of the restaurant scene at the end

SpoilerShow

is that Susan never contacted Edward (they show her writing emails but she closes her laptop without sending them) and that Susan has made the decision that she is happy to be alone.

SpoilerShow

There was an audible swoosh of sending mail when she sent the reply, and we see Edward's response to her. It's probably a more plausible interpretation than my "Edward commits suicide theory", but we'd have to accept that the film is showing us things in the real (non-novel) world that aren't actually happening.