Skip to main content

A Separation of Solemn Dread


Even for the subject matter of a dissolving relationship, The Killing of Two Lovers is an uncomfortable movie. It certainly starts off in such a fashion, opening on a dishevelled man pointing a gun at a sleeping couple in their bedroom before backing out of a murder at the last second and jogging down the road to his home …or rather his father’s home. Because as we soon learn, the house he was in was in fact his own, and the sleeping couple his currently separated wife and her lover. And this defining moment from the start of the film casts a shadow over the next eighty minutes or so as we watch this man fail to deal with his grief over the situation in the knowledge of what he may be capable of.
The Killing of Two Lovers premiered at last years’ Sundance festival courtesy of writer-director (and editor) Robert Machoian. It’s the kind of film too that Sundance was made for, and that Machoian apparently specializes in: microbudget features shot with a lot of minimalism and few name actors in obscure corners of the United States -and usually centring on working class people and their lives illustrated through extreme realism. Not to knock this kind of movie by any means. Firecrackers was one such film, Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always was another. The Killing of Two Lovers isn’t as engaging to watch as those, principally due to Machoian’s preference for long uninterrupted takes and wide shots that don’t allow for much interesting visual expression. But in this choice he does keep the film on edge; he reflects a daunting isolation and overwhelming sense of emptiness that encapsulates the bitter emotional fallout of this break-up for the husband, framed with an honest but unflattering intensity.
Clayne Crawford plays David, who works a kind of removals job in a small town somewhere in northern Utah, on a trial separation from his wife Nikki (Sepideh Moafi), who is remaining in their home with their four kids while David stays with his father. There are conditions they have mutually agreed to, including a weekly date night, ample time spent with the children, and the option to see other people -something Nikki has been doing but David has not. And though he defends her choice to their eldest daughter, the most troubled by this whole affair, it bothers him deeply, gnawing away at his hopes, his ego, and his psychological well-being.  Crawford gives a very good performance as someone exceptionally wounded by heartbreak and desperate for reconciliation, though without much of a barometer for self-awareness, concealing it all in an agreeable, considerate attitude. And we might buy it if it weren’t for the revealing nature of that opening scene, which casts every genial gesture and supportive statement in the light of his need to win her over. Every word and action is calculated in the hopes it amounts to her taking him back. And if she doesn’t, what happens?
There is a degree of empathetic truth to David’s situation, and Machoian handles well the devastation of being on the receiving end of someone falling out of love. You feel Davids’ pain vividly at times, which is a testament to Crawford’s performance. Clearly, Nikki was the greater architect of separation, he’s the one to feel sorry for. And yet we never see what the reason was for that, what her side of the story is, nor do we see David doing the necessary soul-searching to figure out where it went wrong and how he can do better. instead he seems to mope a lot, content with the perception that he was the one done wrong. And he just wants things to go back to how they were without really questioning it. Because what the movie is most keenly addressing is toxic masculinity.
Expressing himself is clearly something David struggles with. It’s most viscerally apparent in his awkward conversation with Nikki on their date, which involves them just sitting in their car watching the house. For much of the film he carries with him a disingenuous reserve that hides his intense anger and sadness, the mask gradually slipping the more his old life seemingly disintegrates. It’s not hard to see how he views Nikki’s new partner Derek (Chris Coy) as an affront to his masculinity, especially given how Derek rather insensitively tries to assert himself more permanently as a fixture of Nikki’s life and their childrens’. It’s compounded by David’s poor self-image and the actions expected of him by others who likewise consider him blameless in all this. His own daughter for one, as unaware as we are of the real cause of the separation, emphasizes he needs to fight for Nikki. Violence is the answer.
And that violence Machoian keeps bubbling under the surface, by David being worn down by humiliation after humiliation to his pride: moving back in with his dad, losing his daughters’ respect -even little things like embarrassing himself by showing up at his kids’ window at night to recycle a joke from a comedian they like or failing to launch a little toy rocket on his outing with them. There’s a bleak humour in this to accompany the dull foreboding tone, even up to the climax; where the aggression finally pours forth in a particularly lengthy one-shot, only to be neutered by a last indignity and subsequent pitiful mental break. It’s broadly sympathetic. And yet that feeling is clawed back by the ending, a terribly depressing final scene that suggests a certain compromise of misery. Nobody dies but the film certainly lives up to its’ title.
The Killing of Two Lovers is the kind of movie that’s not going to generate any buzz with people who aren’t in the know, but as microbudget Sundance films go it’s pretty good. Machoian may not be much of a stylist, but his raw subtle storytelling is certainly to be commended, and the films’ melancholy benefits both the pathos and the underlying tension of the piece. In the long history of movies concerning dissolving marriages, I can’t say I’ve ever seen one like it.  

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...