Two Days, One Night

The only reason *The Ax* works at all is because Gavras is my favorite director, and frankly, he’s capable of crafting films far superior to this one. While I found the initial setup and the way the theme was developed quite engaging, once the protagonist reveals his true method of operation, the momentum just evaporates... you find yourself yawning, checking your watch, and simply counting down the minutes until the credits roll. I appreciate him for who he is, though; I’d say *Two Days, One Night* and *The Ax* sit pretty much side-by-side on my personal watchlist.

About ten days ago, I was having absolutely no luck trying to find a movie anywhere. I ended up downloading some random torrent, but I couldn't get the file to open at all. Did you guys end up streaming it instead?

northerncrane4 said:But that’s just because we have it too easy, not because things are actually going south. People today—I'm talking about Western civilization—are mostly just spoiled brats.

Big debatable point there. First, we gotta define what "good" even looks like before we can use it as a yardstick. Right now, some guy like Anderson Cooper is basically pulling the strings on our fates, and I highly doubt you or I are the ones to blame. Not to mention the guys with much thicker fingers.

It goes without saying that this needs to be discussed, but we need to talk about it seriously. And seriously—what did this protagonist actually do to deserve a better life, assuming she's even a real person? What did any of her unqualified coworkers do to earn a thousand-dollar monthly or yearly bonus? Why should we care about any of them? Just out of some vague sense of human empathy? That’s just standard dramatic tropes, not actual people. Movies like this aren't made to make us question things; they're made so festival crowds can feel good about their own empathy.

What did she do to deserve better? It's pretty obvious. She didn't do anything to deserve being treated like crap. But she got treated like crap. Because this system turns people into assholes. That's the whole point of the movie, not those ten layers of characterization shoved into two days and one night just so we might feel something for one specific person. The film isn't about that. It's not about whether these specific characters are good or bad. It's about that pure solidarity that exists during office coffee breaks against brightly colored white walls, only to vanish right when it matters most. That pattern bugs you. Doesn't bug me. Whatever.

Compare this film to DeSoto. Compare it to "Citizen Kane." There's a massive difference in how the characters are built and how the story is told.

Idk why you keep raising the bar like that. It doesn't say anything about this movie. Sure, I watched The Thief, absolute masterpiece, but by your logic, that fact has zero bearing on the movie we're actually talking about.

In other words—it's all a calculation.

Hard to say. Usually, weirdness attracts people. Weirdness is exotic; being ordinary isn't.

I really don't want to get into quoting anyone here, but comparing Svilicic’s last film to this one? Honestly, with Svilicic, you constantly find yourself wondering if the characters are just dim-witted because they spend so much time explaining obvious facts to one another in such a literal, clunky way. It probably would have been better if he’d just handed them a synopsis and let the actors improvise. The whole thing feels messy and imprecise. It goes to show that capturing true realism on screen isn't nearly as easy as people think it is. Just look at Faraday, Panahi, or Mungiu—they are the gold standard for a reason.

As for the movie we're actually discussing, I personally wasn't a fan of how monotonous it felt. Every family ends up being more or less the same, and there's all this massive drama surrounding unemployment in Belgium. Rather than using realism to build a genuine atmosphere, I felt like the director—or both of them—just used it as a backdrop for a story that feels somewhat marginal, especially given that the actual life circumstances depicted aren't even that critical.

The movie is solid. The lead actress delivers an excellent performance, and I found the genre execution to be quite grounded. However, I find myself getting tripped up by the concept of realism—specifically where the line is drawn. Is a film like Stroszek considered realism, or would a film like Bogdan Zizic's Early Snow set in Munich fall into that category?

shadowtinker15 said:I really don't have the energy to debate this, but comparing Svilicic's last film to this one feels wrong; with Svilicic, you constantly find yourself wondering if the characters are actually dim-witted because they spend so much time explaining obvious facts to one another in such a painfully literal way.

What you’re pointing out is actually just a matter of narrative structure, where the portrayal of mundane, everyday chatter through endless dialogue isn't meant to convey vital information, but rather serves to highlight the most important things by choosing to leave them unsaid, which is a fairly standard technique within the genre.

This movie is just another entry in the recent wave of hyper-realistic slow cinema that seems to be everywhere lately. Honestly, I’m not a huge fan of the style—either because we’re already drowning in movies like this, or because this approach feels like a self-imposed limitation on what the medium can actually do. Watching this in a theater offers zero added value compared to watching it on your TV or a tablet. The widescreen aspect ratio, the camera angles, the outdoor shots... none of it matters. You could have shot the whole thing on a smartphone and gotten the exact same effect.

That said, just like anything else, there are better versions and worse ones—mediocre examples versus the absolute bottom of the barrel. For me, the Romanian 8 Months... is the gold standard for this genre; a truly brilliant piece where you feel the director actually guiding both the audience and the actors toward those intense dramatic peaks. 2 Days... is just mediocre and way too hyped up. Marion has sixteen colleagues to visit, and she basically has the same conversation with twelve of them—with the other four being only slightly different. If there had been eight people instead of sixteen, the movie would have been half as long without losing a single bit of substance.

Jamie Davis9 said:What you're getting at is really about narrative structure—how they portray mundane, everyday communication through a flood of sentences that aren't actually meant to convey anything vital. Instead, the goal is to consciously leave the important stuff unsaid, which somehow makes it stand out more. It’s a pretty common stylistic choice within the genre.

I suspect you might be conflating hyperrealism—where the focus is on building a specific atmosphere rather than pure realism—with the work of the Dardenne brothers. Svilicic’s film aims for straight realism, yet the dialogue doesn't really build anything; it just feels tossed together. Not all of it, obviously, but much of it. With the Dardenne brothers, the dialogue is crisp and purposeful; there isn't any wasted breath or aimless rambling. Even the protagonist is in constant conversation with those she's asking for help, and the film isn't even trying to manufacture some sort of hyperrealist vibe. Like I mentioned before, this one is incomparably better than Svilicic's.

frozenraven39 said:This movie is a textbook example of that hyper-realistic "slow cinema" style that seems to be everywhere lately. To be honest, I’m not much of a fan of this approach. Either we’re just being overstuffed with these kinds of films, or the director is intentionally stripping away everything that makes the medium special. Watching this in a theater offers absolutely nothing more than watching it on your TV or a tablet. The widescreen format, the camera angles, the outdoor shots—none of it actually matters here. You could have shot the whole thing on a smartphone and gotten the exact same result.

Well, just like anything else, there are better versions and worse ones—some mediocre, some totally unremarkable. For me, the Romanian film *4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days* is my absolute favorite within this genre; it’s a truly brilliant piece where you feel the director guiding both you and the actors toward these intense dramatic peaks. *2 Days*? It’s just an average, overrated flick. Marion visits 16 different colleagues, and he basically has the same conversation with about 12 of them, with only slight variations for the other four. If there had been 8 people instead of 16, the movie would have been half as long and wouldn't have lost any substance at all.

I’m not sure what this movie has to do with that hyper-realistic style from Romania. Take Juric, for instance—he’s clearly trying too hard to mimic those Romanian filmmakers. This isn't really that kind of film.

shadowtinker15 said:I suspect you’re actually talking about hyperrealism—where the focus is on building an atmosphere rather than strict realism—when discussing the Dardenne brothers' films. Svilicic's work attempts realism, yet the dialogue feels disjointed and serves no real purpose; it just sits there. Not everyone will agree, obviously, but for many, it misses the mark. In the Dardenne brothers' films, the dialogue is crisp and purposeful, devoid of any aimless chatter. The protagonist is always in active conversation with those she turns to for help, and even then, the film isn't trying to manufacture some hyperrealist vibe. As I mentioned before, it is incomparably superior to what Svilicic produced.

What on earth are you rambling about? Hyperrealism built on atmospheric tension? I honestly can't follow your logic, and frankly, I fear you might be just as lost as I am.
Real life is nothing if not filled with mindless babble. Look in the mirror.

Regarding the two films, my point wasn't about which one was better, but rather how they relate to one another.

shadowtinker15 said:I have no idea how this movie relates to Romanian hyperrealism. Juric, for instance, is just trying to mimic the Romanians. This isn't that kind of film.

Look, I’m not quite brilliant enough to draw a hard line between Romanian hyperrealism and Belgian realism—to me, they're basically the same thing. Or rather, I tend to use "hyperrealism" to describe something that feels excessively realistic—like, ultra-realistic or turbo-realistic. Maybe I'm using the term wrong, but I'm certainly not the only one. To my mind, those films are hyper-realistic because "realism" is such a broad category. Take *The Godfather*—that's a realistic film, but *Hell Orange* definitely isn't. Yet, *The Godfather* isn't "hyper" realistic either. Hyper-realistic films are the ones that feel like fake documentaries. There's no background music the characters aren't hearing, no camera tricks, no artificial colors... just raw.

Jamie Davis9 said:What on earth are you talking about? Hyperrealism used to build atmosphere? I honestly can't follow your train of thought, and frankly, I’m starting to worry you haven't quite grasped it yourself.
Everyday life is just full of empty chatter. Take a look at yourself.

As far as those two films go, I wasn't making a comparison based on quality—I was looking at their kinship.

Look, I can see this topic gets under your skin, so let’s just lay the facts out plainly and calmly. Picture this: a guy sits down in his kitchen after getting home from work. There's just a bowl of soup in front of him. In the next room, his wife is lounging on the couch because it's dinner time, and she's listening to some popular country song playing on the radio. We spend fifteen minutes watching this man slowly eat his soup while the singer's voice drifts in from the radio. I didn't make this scene up. If that isn't hyperrealism—if that isn't capturing the sheer atmosphere of daily monotony—then what exactly is?

frozenraven39 said:Look, I’m certainly not smart enough to draw a hard line between Romanian hyperrealism and Belgian realism. To me, they basically feel like the same thing. Honestly, I mostly use "hyperrealism" just to describe something that feels aggressively realistic—like, ultra-realistic or turbo-realistic. Maybe I'm using the term wrong, but hey, I'm not the only one who does. In my mind, those specific movies fall under hyper-realism because "realism" is such a broad category. For instance, *The Godfather* is a realistic film, but *A Clockwork Orange* isn't. Yet, I wouldn't call *The Godfather* "hyper-realistic." To me, hyper-realistic films are the ones that look like fake documentaries. There’s no background music the characters can't hear, no camera tricks, no artificial color grading, etc. Just pure grit.

Realism and hyper-realism are really just two ends of the same spectrum. And if you're talking about a "fake documentary," that's actually what people call a mockumentary. These first two categories are just scripted films where some happen to be shot in a documentary style.

shadowtinker15 said:Look, I can see you're getting worked up about this, so let's just lay out the facts without all the drama. There's a guy sitting in his kitchen, just getting home from work, with nothing in front of him but a bowl of soup. In the next room, his wife is lounging on the sofa because it's dinner time, listening to some mainstream country song playing on the radio. We watch this man in the kitchen slowly eating his soup for fifteen minutes while the singer's voice drifts in from the radio. I didn't make this up. If you don't consider that hyperrealism or a way to build an atmosphere of everyday monotony, then what on earth do you call it?

I am not being emotional; there simply isn't a scene in the movie where some guy spends fifteen minutes slowly eating soup.

shadowtinker15 said:Real Madrid and hyper-realism are just two ends of the same spectrum.

😕 No, they aren't two ends of the same spectrum at all.

shadowtinker15 said:Picture this: a guy sits down in his kitchen, just getting home from a long shift at the office. He’s got a bowl of soup sitting in front of him. In the next room, his wife is lounging on the sofa because it’s finally evening, and she's listening to some mainstream country song playing on the radio. We just watch this man in the kitchen, slowly working through his soup for fifteen minutes while the singer's voice drifts in from the radio... I'm not making this up. If you don't consider that hyperrealism—the raw creation of an atmosphere defined by everyday monotony—then I truly have no idea what you do consider it to be...

Dogme 95.

Jamie Davis9 said:Look, I'm not one for being overly emotional about this. There isn't a single scene in the movie where some guy just sits there slowly sipping soup for fifteen minutes.

The Detective vibe - Porumbo

I wasn't counting the seconds, and honestly, I couldn't tell if it was strictly soup, but at the end of the day, it’s all about building that atmosphere.

Jamie Davis9 said:😕 No, they aren't just two ends of the same stick.

They really aren't. In your case, you're looking at a straw.

It isn't really about whether you're holding a walking stick or a straw, it’s more about how you handle both ends.

The core issue here is that you jumped the gun by claiming hyperrealism lacks any sense of atmosphere. I tried to back my counterpoint with a specific film example to show you why that isn't the case, but now we're just splitting hairs.