Runtime: 1 hour, 35 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
Quick Impressions:
I’m done!
I’ve finally seen all the Oscar nominated performances and pictures! And now I’m free! Free! Hooray! After this, I may take a brief hiatus from this blog until my son is born. I still plan to see and review as many new movies as possible, but I’m nineteen weeks pregnant today, and getting to the theater and sitting through a feature length film every week can be an ordeal. In the meantime, I might review some classic films that I haven’t seen before (or have only seen once as a child), but I’m not sure that I’ll post those reviews on this blog. I may start a new blog to keep this one reserved for new releases. We’ll see.
On a related note, if you’re a pregnant woman, good luck trying to find a time to take a bathroom break during this film. Two Days, One Night has a pretty straight-forward structure. Marion Cotillard’s Sandra has just one weekend to convince the majority of her sixteen co-workers to vote for her to keep her job (at the expense of the one-thousand Euro bonus they will otherwise each receive). To accomplish this, she must visit every person’s home for a brief face-to-face chat before they gather as a group to vote on Monday. So except for a few momentum breaks, the film consists entirely of a non-stop series of one-on-one visits. As soon as Sandra leaves the home of one co-worker, she’s already well on her way to her next planned encounter. The same set-up plays out over and over again, but the power of the film lies in the fact that each encounter is slightly different. Every new co-worker has an unpredictable, nuanced reaction to Sandra’s plea. So you really can’t miss a minute of the movie or else why bother to watch it at all?
Just ten minutes in—keep in mind, there were a lot of previews—I already had to run to the restroom. When I came back, I accidentally knocked my liter of Smart Water onto the floor. I didn’t realize anything had happened until I heard the unsettling sound of a bottle rolling speedily away to parts unknown. I was sitting in the very last row of a 1980s/90s style theater with a downward sloping floor, so for all I know, my Smart Water rolled all the way down to the bottom of the screen. It was dark in there since the film was in progress, so I reasoned that I would never find the water bottle (highly inconvenient since I’d had only one sip after eating my entire bag of salty popcorn very quickly so I wouldn’t have to carry it to the bathroom with me).
That popcorn was too salty, I kept thinking. Is my blood pressure going to spike? Am I going to get pre-eclampsia? I’ve got to get a new bottle of water. Now I’ll have to go out and buy another one. That $2.00 popcorn special doesn’t seem like such a great deal when you have to spend $5.75 twice for water to wash it down. If I go buy popcorn, that will take time. I can’t go to the bathroom on the same trip out because I’ll miss too much of the movie. But then as soon as I get back, I’ll have to go—especially if I drink the water. When am I going to leave the theater again? Now? No! She’s about to have another encounter. Now? No, I’ll miss the next conversation. Now? She’s just taking a nap now, so surely…oh no, I’d better stay and see what happens here. Now? Oh no, now they’re actually about to take the vote so…Maybe after we learn the results of the vote, I can…
And then suddenly the screen went black and the movie was over. In the midst of a crowded field of bloated, self-indulgent Oscar hopefuls, Two Days, One Night is only a merciful 95 minutes long! That’s a good thing because you really don’t want to step out while it’s in progress. This is one of those films were every single frame counts.
(I still had to buy a second bottle of water, though, because the movie ended so much earlier than I expected that I had to wait at the theater for an hour for my husband to pick me up after getting our daughter from school.)
The Good:
A million years ago when I was in Europe, the value of the euro was very similar to the value of the dollar. Instead of trying to convert the price in drachmas or lire to dollars in our heads, we’d just look at the second price marked in euros and know the item would cost us about that much in American dollars.
I have no idea what the exchange rate is now, but I get the impression that one-thousand euros is a substantial amount of money. One guy says that it will pay his utility bills for a year. And at one point during the film, Sandra buys a lovely looking bottle of water for eighty-five cents. I have never paid eighty-five cents anywhere for a bottle of water that luscious. (I was especially attuned to this because I was anticipating having to fork over $5.75 for an additional bottle of Smart Water to replace the one that had rolled away into the darkness. I know movie theater prices are ridiculously inflated, but still.)
Would I vote to fire a co-worker (who hasn’t been working for an extended period, anyway) in order to secure a $1000 bonus for myself? Um, yes. I think that most people would, especially most working class people. Somebody is no doubt being greedy here, but it is not the workers participating in the vote.
One thing that I found fascinating about the film—almost everybody Sandra talks to says they need the money (even those who eventually agree to help her). But when we see how diverse their circumstances are, we see how slippery the definition of “need” is. In my personal experience, no matter how much money you make, you always spend all of it and need more. Maybe this is because my husband and I are bad at sticking to a budget (or great at having crises!), but it’s a rule that seems to apply to far more people than the two of us.
Some people need the money because they’re already working multiple jobs and are still barely able to feed their families. One person needs it to pay for an addition to a big, new house. One person needs it because she and her boyfriend are just starting out and have to buy everything, even cutlery! (I want to mock this woman by wailing the even cutlery part in a “think of the children!” voice.) Honestly, stocking a home for the first time is expensive, but she’s got nothing on the guy with the wife, young child, and baby who is working a second job at the grocery store just to make the rent. (I’m pretty sure that family has recently immigrated to Belgium, too.) The point is, they all need it, but isn’t that the way with money? Who doesn’t need more money? (It’s curious, though, that they need it so desperately when it’s supposed to be a “bonus.” Is this a bonus they get every year and expect, or is it just a windfall from cutting an employee? I wasn’t clear on that.)
But seriously, if someone said, “You haven’t seen this former co-worker for months, and in that time, you’ve been picking up the slack for her collectively. Should we bring her back, or should we let her go and give you all $1000,” what would you choose? These aren’t bad people. They’re not even particularly greedy people, but that’s in no way a fair choice, and it’s seriously unethical to ask them to make such a decision.
If you’ve been doing extra work already, you are not going to say no to extra money. Have you ever tried to say “no” to $1000? I have, and I found it impossible. If you need the money, why would you say no? (These people shouldn’t even have any qualms of conscience. They are voting to take money in exchange for extra work they have already done.)
I have never seen any of the Dardenne brothers’ films before (that I’m aware of). I have nothing against foreign films. It’s just, I’m not exactly rich either, and you can’t see every new movie that comes out in the entire world. Even paid critics don’t do that. Who has time?
But I did enjoy this film tremendously. I found it thought provoking and wonderfully engaging. And the acting is marvelous, particularly the core performance of Marion Cotillard, deservedly nominated for Best Actress. (I like especially that she’s so understated. She’s not doing anything wildly theatrical, and yet she conveys such passion and pathos.)
The dilemma is so realistic, too. Sometimes I get annoyed with “social activism” films because they present central conflicts that are so contrived. (Million Dollar Baby actually got on my nerves for that reason. There’s plenty to like about the film, but good grief, of course there’s no easy solution to that situation because it’s a fictional situation created for the express purpose of having no easy solution.) But this situation is highly realistic and happens all the time. In fact, I can think of a highly similar real life scenario I personally know about unfolding right now.
Most corporations do not treat their workers ethically. (Individuals working within corporations often do their best, but corporate culture is rather cutthroat and has been for as long as I can remember.) In this country, large companies typically behave in a moral fashion only when they’ve been expressly forced to do so by some law or regulation. (There are exceptions. Sometimes businesses privately owned by people of conscience behave better, but not always.)
Everybody always rails about the evils of corporate America. Apparently being a member of the working class in Belgium is no picnic either. (And I’ve read that the Dardennes got the idea for this story from real events that happened in a factory in France—odd because over here, we always hear how France is so generous to its citizens when it comes to stuff like sick leave and assistance for parents of young children. But I think it’s probably safe to assume that working class people are probably not treated particularly well worldwide, and most of them probably always need an extra $1000.)
Another aspect of the film I found highly intriguing is the way gender plays a role in the response Sandra gets. Early on, we see that male co-workers are far more likely to take pity on Sandra and consider voting for her while their wives and Sandra’s female co-workers are much more likely to “need” their money (and to feel justified in saying so). Late in the movie, this flips for a while, though, and we get to see generous women and greedy, borderline abusive men. I’m not sure quite what to make of this. I’d like to see the film again and think about it some more. Besides being a great look at social injustice, this film is also a brilliant meditation on human nature.
Best Scene:
There’s something highly gratifying about watching people change their minds and agree to vote for Sandra for reasons of conscience. One of the most moving (and surprising) parts of the film comes when one co-worker (fresh off the soccer field), breaks down into tears the moment he lays eyes on Sandra, thanks her for coming, and says how ashamed he is that he didn’t vote to keep her.
Almost always, when someone agrees to vote for Sandra, the decision is grounded in faith, a feeling of obligation, a sense of morality. How terrible that these people are put in such a situation in the first place! But then sometimes you watch this ostensibly quite political movie and begin to wonder to yourself, Is this actually some kind of morality play in disguise? Are we all put in this situation all the time without even realizing it? Is life a test?
Certainly the film owes the uplifting feeling of its ending to a stirring that we all feel when we see people’s nobler qualities (a “brotherhood of man, we’re all God’s children” type sentiment) help them to come together and rise above material concerns.
If I watch the film again, I’m going to try viewing it as a morality play from the beginning and see what I make of it all through that lens. Certainly, Sandra is an Everyman figure on a quest that consumes her the entire time as she goes around visiting various characters who respond to the same dilemma in unique ways. That does kind of seem like a morality play, now that I think about it.
Best Action Sequence:
The late rock and roll on the highway moment is pretty good, as is an early scene when Sandra abruptly leaves the restaurant where her children are eating so that she can cry privately in the parking lot. And there’s always that unexpected fist fight. That’s really something!
Best Scene Visually:
When Sandra is walking to visit Anne, the background of the scene is simply breathtaking. It looks like she’s walking through a painting. Watching, I thought, Okay, so not all of Belgium is working fifty jobs to buy a loaf of bread. At least somebody has the money to build nice new houses. Then I realized, Oh she’s probably going to talk to the guy building the house, a co-worker who has to moonlight as a construction worker to make ends meet. But no, Anne is actually building one of those enormous new houses—and, you guessed it—she needs the money.
Another visual triumph of the film is Marion Cotillard’s appearance. I’ve read that the Dardenne brothers (who normally work with non-famous people) thought it was okay to cast Cotillard (as if you need a reason) because they could imagine what fun it would be to recreate her image, to make her appear like a different person physically, mainly by altering her make-up, mannerisms, and dress. (I can see why she’d appeal to them if they’re into this kind of thing. Think of her mind-blowing transformation into the increasingly infirm Edith Piaf.) There really is a very physical quality to the way she inhabits this character, a woman so worn down, so stressed out, so determined and yet so pathetic.
(Even though she’s dressed down for the role, I still was stunned every time she knocked on the door looking beautiful and distressed and requested to have a mysterious private conversation with the man of the house that none of the wives ever seemed to regard her with the slightest bit of suspicion. If Marion Cotillard showed up at my door out of the blue looking distressed and asked to have an urgent private conversation with my husband, I’m afraid I might not be so forthcoming with his whereabouts without first asking a few follow-up questions of my own. Of course, this is Belgium. Maybe things are different in Belgium. Definitely in this country, nobody would send their ten-year-old daughter off to the laundromat with some stranger in the middle of the night. As I watched the film, I was constantly impressed by the level of courtesy—just basic politeness—in every exchange. No matter how tense and awkward any conversation was, people were always remembering their manners, saying please and thank you, doing the bise. Even when fights broke out, they were always bookended by exchanges of graciousness.)
Most Oscar Worthy Moment, Marion Cotillard:
For some reason, I really love the scene when Sandra and her husband take a break (on what is obviously a very hot day, judging by everyone’s water intake) and eat ice cream cones together on a bench. Cotillard hardly says anything throughout this scene, but her face tells us so much. And her line about the bird is both telling and well delivered.
The Negatives:
Um, I don’t know if anybody else in her life has noticed this except for that nefarious, scheming foreman Jean-Marc (Olivier Gourmet), but Sandra is not better. For a long time, the movie defers telling us what illness exactly took Sandra away from her job in the first place (unless we were told during that very early first bathroom break of mine).
We know that she had to miss a substantial amount of work because she’s been sick, and now that she’s better, she’s eager to come back and resume her old role because her family needs her salary. But the film is very coy about addressing what in particular was wrong with her in the first place.
What we do see is that she keeps taking little white pills throughout the course of the day, and typically just before she reaches for another, she seems incredibly shaky like she’s undergoing physical distress. (At one point, I even wondered if she was about to have a heart attack.)
Finally she tells us what’s going on. She suffers from clinical depression and has just come through some kind of mental breakdown.
Under the circumstances, being forced into awkward confrontations with all of the people who have already voted to eliminate her position once seems likely to lead to a relapse. Why her husband insists she do this is beyond me. Maybe he hopes she will relapse so they can have a legitimate excuse to get government money again. (I doubt that, though, because they both seem so eager to avoid going back on state assistance.)
He does, at least, belatedly think to ask her something like, “Aren’t you taking quite a few of those pills?”
No kidding. Even if they were Tic-Tacs, she’s still taken too many.
Sandra replies that she needs them. Now I’m pretty familiar with psychiatric medication, and I’d say a safe rule of thumb is that anything you’re prescribed by a psychiatrist is not meant to be taken as “needed” multiple times a day at any point when you feel bad.
Later still we learn that what she’s taking is Xanax. And then of course, we see what happens when a person recovering from a mental breakdown is forced into a stressful, impossible situation.
What bothers me is that after the mini-crisis of the movie, when Sandra reaches a low ebb but manages to pull through, both she and her husband then determine to carry on as if nothing of consequence has happened. You have got to be kidding me. If I were that doctor, I would not have let her out of the hospital. No way. Just saying you’re “okay” is not enough. Your behavior must demonstrate that you are actually okay, okay for more than twelve hours at a time.
She has two very young children, and she is clearly not okay. If I were her husband, I would not coerce her to instigate such emotionally exhausting encounters with her co-workers. What she says to him in the beginning is correct. Every worker wants (and usually needs) a $1000 bonus. Voting to keep that money is “normal.” If I were her husband, I would insist that she leave her job, even if it meant going back into government housing. You need to think long term. No matter what she says, your wife is not okay, and forcing her into stressful, unpleasant situations is not going to help. Unless you want to be raising two young children on your own, you should encourage your wife to rest or at the very least to pursue a different job in a less hostile environment.
The complication of her depression changed the way I read the situation unfolding in the movie. What I had heard about the film before going led me to believe that she was simply arbitrarily being let go because they needed to a) lay someone off or b) forgo bonuses. But actually the idea of letting Sandra go to cut costs makes sense because she’s already been gone for an extended period, and during that time, sixteen workers were able to do the work of seventeen. I can see why her bosses would want to eliminate her position under those circumstances. That is an unfair, inhumane thing that businesses do, but they do it all over the world all the time. It’s practical. Why pay seventeen people when you can pay sixteen to do the same work? That kind of thinking saves the company money.
Throughout the film, Jean-Marc is consistently depicted as this meddling villain who is constantly plotting against Sandra for no good reason. But when we actually meet him in the flesh near the end, his character reads quite differently.
Even before we saw Jean-Marc, as we saw more and more of Sandra, I began to ask myself increasingly, What if he’s right? What if she really can’t do the job? What if he’s so in favor of getting rid of her because he knows there must be cuts somewhere, and he can see that she’s honestly not capable of doing the job anymore?
And then when we met him, a new suspicion crept into my mind. What if a lot of people need the bonus and also perceive that Sandra is really not 100 percent even now. Maybe Jean-Marc has not actually instigated anything. Maybe they’re all just scapegoating Jean-Marc because they feel too guilty and awkward to tell Sandra that they don’t think she’s up to the job.
In my experience, nobody likes to tell people who have been “crazy” that they’re still crazy. The whole idea makes most decent people very nervous. And yet you can’t let something like that slide. The natural thing to do is try to prevent the person from harming himself or others but without seeming to be acting against him in any way when talking to him face to face. This is just human nature. Nobody wants to seem disloyal or unkind, but nobody really wants an unstable co-worker, either, especially if it costs more than peace of mind. Ask yourself—would you rather have a $1000 bonus or share responsibilities with an unstable co-worker? That’s a pretty obvious choice.
Now clearly a huge point the film is making is that getting adequate treatment for an illness is impossible if you’re penalized for being sick. Depression (like most psychiatric issues) is a medical problem, an illness. If depressed people aren’t allowed to get help, or if they’re stigmatized for getting help, or if after getting help, they’re prevented from working, how in the world can they ever get better? A just society would allow any worker to take time to recover from an illness and then let them return to a secure job in a positive working environment.
But you can’t expect business owners to behave so altruistically without some kind of financial incentive (or government mandate). And I also am not convinced that someone should be given a job just because she wants one. I mean, yes, accommodation must be made for people with special needs, but after having a mental breakdown (and clearly still battling depression and possible addiction issues), Sandra quite possibly is not capable of doing the same job she did before.
The real injustice of the movie is that her co-workers are forced into the awkward position of having to vote on this issue. They must vote against either their own consciences or their own interests. These people are not millionaires. They are working class, struggling to get by, to provide for their families. Almost all of them truly need the money from the bonus, at least as much as Sandra needs the income from the job.
What I kept wondering during the film was, Why is the economy in Belgium so awful? Why are all of these people in such dire straits financially? Why can’t Sandra get a new job? Why can’t her husband get a better job? Is the job market so terrible there?
The movie ends well, but the problem is far more complex than it appears at first glance.
Perhaps putting all this is in “The Negatives” section is inappropriate because I’m not sure these are flaws of the film. Clearly the film is meant to make the audience think about a complicated social issue.
But watching, I found it hard to root for Sandra to get her job back. (I keep thinking of one of the last people she talks to, who, weeping, tells her, “For your sake, I hope you do get your job back, even though if you do, it will be a disaster for me.”) There is no happy ending here. Either Sandra loses her job, or her co-workers lose income they need.
I’m not sure staying employed at that workplace is the best thing for her at this point, honestly. I think her husband is flat-out wrong to force her to talk to all of those people. Granted, some good does come from it. She does learn that she has the support of a lot of caring people. But still, how did her husband know it would turn out that way? He could have killed her. And for what? Under such circumstances, getting a new job is the best idea.
I mean, would you want to work with people who had already voted (by overwhelming majority) to fire you? Would you want to work with them knowing that nearly half of them didn’t get a bonus they refused to vote to give up because you convinced slightly more than half to vote to give it up and retain you? My convoluted sentence aside, that is not a healthy working environment, particularly for someone with a mood disorder and deeply shaken confidence.
I guess I’m old fashioned. I think that if you’re not capable of doing your work, then you shouldn’t be working. Granted, provision must be made for those who are incapable of working because of illness, injury, or other misfortune. And I do think that the way in which the company planned to get rid of Sandra is wrong. Let her come back from her medical leave and demonstrate that she is incapable of doing the job before deciding she’s incapable of doing the job. What the company is doing there is certainly unethical (and rather sketchy legally if Belgian law requires them to retain her position while she’s on medical leave).
But I still have my doubts about Sandra’s recovery. To be considered stable, surely you must demonstrate stability for a period longer than a few hours. And seriously, she needs to lay off the Xanax. Even before she takes way too much, she takes way too much.
Overall:
Two Days, One Night is a quick watch and a thoroughly engaging film. Marion Cotillard gives a great, Oscar-nominated performance, and the movie asks thought-provoking questions not easily answered. I wouldn’t mind watching this again, but next time I’ll remain in the comfort of my own home where I don’t have to pay $5.75 every time I stupidly drop my Smart Water on the floor.