Skip to main content

We Broke Up: A Relationship Movie that Doesn't Know What it Wants

     

        William Jackson Harper was ready for a leading movie role like this. So was Aya Cash I assume -I haven’t seen The Boys but I know she’s been one of its’ breakout stars. Harper absolutely was on The Good Place, the last season of which really demonstrated why, complimenting his unique comic sensibility with a shift into romantic leading man material that no doubt predicated his casting in this movie. And that kind of subject matter really seems to lend itself well to Cash’s talents too. Both Harper and Cash richly deserve spotlighting, and in fact I would like to see them utilized in romantic comedy again. Because their first round didn’t take.
        We Broke Up is a lame movie by almost every measure. In its’ script and structure down to the filming itself, it reads as exceptionally cheap and unambitious. Written and directed by Jeff Rosenberg, a TV veteran of sitcoms, it unsurprisingly is built around a very sitcom-welcome premise. A long-term couple breaks up just ahead of an important social obligation where they have to pretend they’re still together. This premise itself is what drives the story, with sights set on a few developments and a particular end goal, but not much consideration or interest in the context or characters. The film opens on the break-up between Lori (Cash) and Doug (Harper) out of a marriage proposal that backfires, and it doesn’t waste much time then establishing the necessity for them to put on a ruse for the wedding of Lori’s sister Bea (Sarah Bolger) a few days later. All this without the film ever adequately setting up a sense of their relationship.
        That’s not strictly necessary of course for a sitcom episode or even a particular kind of comedy movie. But We Broke Up doesn’t work as either. While the setup would forecast hijinks or an extravagant comic tone, the movie doesn’t follow through. The jokes are grounded and rather muted, the comic situations don’t amount to much, and it never even plays up the obvious farcical elements such as the potential of Doug making out with another woman to be spotted by Bea. He’s spotted by Lori instead for drama. The film almost never fails to take the wind out of a comedic moment, or substitute more promising concepts for material that is just unfunny, namely the bizarre set-up of a wedding at a summer camp, complete with camp-themed activities, and an indulgence in the irritable excitability of Bea or half-baked doofus stoner jokes around her fiance Jayson (Tony Cavalero). Mostly though, the movie is not funny because it doesn’t know what level it wants to pitch the comedy at -and seems to not particularly care either. There are a handful of “big jokes” but they are never quite as big as they should be for their full effect; a good example being a pool chicken fight between Lori and Doug that is building to a breaking point for Lori, only for it culminate in an underwhelming little shove that nonetheless lands Doug in the water. And it utterly fails to get a reaction.
        I don’t know how much of this floundering comedy filmmaking is just incompetence, but to some degree it feels intentional, because the tonal focus is more concentrated in the drama of the break-up and the painful awkwardness of the situation more than the levity of it. An attempt at a more honest approach to this kind of story, in line with a lot of American indie comedy these days. And yet this film never does the work to earn that either. It wants you to feel for Lori and Doug, and Cash and Harper do their damnedest -and not to entirely ill effect. They both get a handful of good moments where you’re tempted to really care about them. But sadly, the script just isn’t willing to get to know them, and what it does reveal, due to the needs of the plot, doesn’t cast them in a good light. Despite the longevity of their relationship (ten years) it would seem they don’t actually know each other very well, particularly with regards to their plans for the future. Never once it appears have they discussed what they want out of life. And Doug in particular is a stubborn prick -unwilling to have a conversation about the subject of marriage and children if its’ not going to go his way. There is an easy compromise available that is never taken or even entertained. But of course the reason the movie avoids having that kind of discussion and paints Doug so broadly is because the script is fundamentally lazy, and can’t progress the characters’ points beyond one simple difference between them. It especially does Lori a disservice, never letting her articulate what she really wants. One of the other things the script is trying to do is play against cliché and take the story in a more respectable, bittersweet direction. Yet it still plays around with the convention as a red herring -a whole sequence of the film that is blatantly pointless and actually does more harm to its final resolution by backtracking on the emotional investment these two have in each other.
        On top of all this the movie is just blandly made. I wouldn’t be surprised if the script was written around the location they got for the filming to cut costs. The scenes that are meant to be funny are often not shot to those purposes making them even more awkward to watch. The movie can’t even utilize Eduardo Franco (of Booksmart and American Vandal) right, to say nothing of the wasted talents of Bolger and even Peri Gilpin as the girls’ mother.
        We Broke Up really could have been something if it either had just genuine curiosity in exploring a failed relationship in a compelling and nuanced way or if it had gone for broke and had fun with the premise without the need for emotional stakes attached to the characters. It’s failure was in not committing either way and trying to excuse a lack of thoughtfulness and effort by a seemingly mature storytelling choice in the end. But even a satisfying break-up needs to be earned. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...