Two Days, One Night

shadowtinker15 said:The point I was trying to make is that you made this sweeping claim about hyperrealism lacking any sense of atmosphere, and since I tried to counter that with a specific film example, we're just spinning our wheels here.

The real issue is that you still haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, and your insistence that hyperrealism somehow creates atmosphere remains just as idiotic and nonsensical as it was a moment ago; hyperrealism doesn't build atmosphere, rather, a total absence of atmosphere is inherent to the very nature of hyperrealism.

shadowtinker15 said:Real and hyper—just two ends of the same stick.

Actually, if we're being precise, the "real" would be the stick itself, while "hyper" is just something attached to one end. But I get what you mean—they aren't mutually exclusive.

Real = something that actually exists; something true.
Hyper = 1. something above or beyond something else; 2. excessive or over the top.

When I bring up hyperrealism, I'm leaning into that second definition of the prefix "hyper."

Lisa Williams31 said:Did nobody else notice how much they totally screwed her over?
And what if she gets fired?
There are unemployment benefits while you look for a new gig, at least in places like France where workers actually have more protection than our own members of Congress.

It’s kind of like Sophia's choice with those warts.

This was getting on my nerves too. But I guess I gave myself an explanation earlier, like some random stranger would. Since she deals with mental health issues, maybe changing habits or her whole environment would be really hard for her.
Still, I don't know how she'd handle going back to a job where she isn't wanted.
+ That bonus was confusing.
Was it annual? Monthly? And why can she only get it if she gets fired? The boss claims it's because of the competition. 😵

Marion is a great actress. The themes and character work are interesting, but honestly, the movie just bored me.

granitetiger69 said:This whole thing was getting on my nerves too. But I eventually gave myself some context, kind of like an anonymous post I made earlier. For someone dealing with mental health struggles, changing up your routine or your entire environment isn't exactly a walk in the park.
Then again, how would she even handle going back to a job she absolutely hates?
+ That bonus part threw me for a loop.
Is it annual? Monthly? And why is it contingent on her getting fired? The boss claims it’s all about keeping the competition at bay. 😵

Marion is a fantastic actress. The themes and the character work are solid, but honestly, the movie just dragged for me.

From what I gathered reading through IMDb, that bonus is basically just overtime pay.

Jamie Davis9 said:The point I'm making is that you still don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your claim that hyperrealism builds atmosphere is just as foolish and nonsensical as it was a moment ago. Hyperrealism doesn't create atmosphere; rather, a lack of atmosphere is inherent to hyperrealism itself.

So, apparently, I’m not just rambling, but I’m also writing nonsense, and my arguments are supposedly "foolish and meaningless" on top of it all. I did mention earlier that you were being a bit extreme with that take on hyperrealism—and if you look closely, you'll see I'm being much more polite than you are, even though I was right. If you actually want to have a debate, you should at least try to back up your views instead of just throwing street-style insults at movies you haven't even watched, like that police procedural label you used.

Walter Grant5 said:highly debatable—first we have to define what "good" actually is before we can use it as a benchmark. nowadays some guy like Anderson Cooper has his hands in our fates, though I highly doubt you or I are responsible for that. not to mention those with much thicker fingers.

Unknown, Walter Grant5, please don't be banal. What does Anderson Cooper have to do with your destiny? What exactly do you do at local news stations?

Walter Grant5 said:what did she do to deserve better? it’s practically notorious. she didn't do anything to deserve being treated poorly, yet she was.

She didn't get treated poorly at all. She still has a roof over her head, running water, a bathroom, and her husband works as a chef, so she'll eat well.
This is a woman with two small kids who is ready to swallow a pack of Xanax just because she "can't take it anymore." Sorry, but my sympathy is at absolute zero Kelvin.

Walter Grant5 said:because this system turns people into scumbags. that's the point of this movie, not ten layers of characterization over two days and one night just to force us to feel empathy for a specific character.

But that isn't true—that this system turns people into scumbags. This system, at most, caters to people.

Walter Grant5 said:it's about pure solidarity—the kind found during office coffee breaks in brightly colored white walls, which vanishes at the most critical moments, when it's needed most. that pattern bothers you.

What bothers me is the false dichotomy this film imposes, which you are also repeating here. There is no life-or-death question at stake. At most, there's a question of living at a higher or lower standard of living. So I ask again—on what grounds did this protagonist deserve a higher standard? Especially since her "lower" standard is actually quite high.

Walter Grant5 said:I don't know why you constantly raise the bar. it says absolutely nothing about this film. I watched Bicycle Thieves—a masterpiece—but unfortunately, by your comparison, that fact has nothing to do with the current movie.

How does it say nothing? It establishes a comparison between films dealing with very similar, if not identical, themes. Why should we ignore superior examples?😕

Walter Grant5 said:Hardly—uniqueness usually draws people in. Uniqueness is exotic; being ordinary isn't.

Exactly. This film is both unusual and exotic in its delivery.

shadowtinker15 said:So, apparently, I’m not just rambling, I’m actually spewing nonsense, and my arguments are just as mindless as they come. I pointed out that you really overstepped with that whole hyperrealism comment—if you want to see how much more composed I am than you, there it is, and frankly, I was right. If you’re going to try and have a debate about this stuff, at least put in the effort to back up your views instead of just throwing street-level insults at movies you clearly haven't even bothered to watch, using labels like "police procedural" as some kind of weapon.

Look, I wasn't attacking any specific films, I was simply stating that your claim about hyperrealism building atmosphere is as ridiculous as your idea that realism and hyperrealism are two opposite ends of the same spectrum. My apologies if that somehow offended you, the films, or the terminology itself.

northerncrane4 said:Unknown, Walter Grant, stop being basic. What does Anderson Cooper have to do with your destiny? Why are you even working at local news stations?

it has negative political influence. And politics shapes destinies.

how is that "too good" for us? what's actually good, and how are we supposedly better than that or above it just to be considered spoiled? why generalize when plenty of people are struggling, with tons of unemployed folks and terrible social standing? maybe things are fine for you, so don't project that onto everyone else. were you trying to say we aren't on an existential edge? do we have to be on the brink for it to matter?

She didn't get hit that hard. She’ll still have a roof over her head, hot running water, a bathroom, her husband works as a chef, so she'll eat fine.
It's some lady with two little kids who's ready to swallow a pack of Xanax because she "can't take it anymore." Sorry, but my sympathy is sitting at absolute zero.

first off, she didn't pop a whole box of Xanax just so you could feel bad for her; she was established from the jump as a fragile, depressed person. that's just how the protagonist is written.

secondly. she did get screwed. she had a job and lost it because her coworkers turned out to be assholes. you want everything to be a total catastrophe just so it's worth talking about.

But that's not true, that this system turns people into assholes. This system actually favors people as much as possible.

so they'll just vote to get a bonus instead of letting their coworker keep their job? doesn't that show it benefits some more than others, creating these gaps between them?

It bothers me how this film forces this false dichotomy, and you're just repeating it here. It's not a matter of life or death. At most, it's a question of living at a higher or lower standard. So I'll ask again—what did this protagonist do to deserve a higher standard? Especially since her "lower" standard is still pretty high.

there isn't one, there's just the gap between a normal standard and a bad one. anyway, what even counts as a high standard? maybe from the view of people who have nothing? if that's the case, let's just never talk about the problems of the middle or upper class ever again.
why are you constantly ignoring the solidarity in the story? social status isn't even the main issue in the movie; it's the interpersonal relationships. Besides, the film ends on a totally positive note, which proves the point.

How does it not speak to it? It compares itself to films dealing with very similar, if not identical, themes. Why would we ignore the better examples?😕

Yeah, but you’re trying to force me to defend some "masterpiece," which isn't what I said about this flick.

I can't even be bothered to argue.

Let's get some things straight:

The movie clearly isn't tackling deep existential crises since you've got characters eating ice cream in the park while chatting about the whole situation.
They're surrounded by this fake material security just to signal they've "made it," but obviously, that’s not what actually makes people happy—something you see in real life all the time. Modernization did its thing, I guess. You don't have to be a farmer to feel like you're breathing in toxic air.
People can be total jerks to one another just to build up capital, even when it's not a matter of life or death. Like, someone might fix up their yard without giving a damn if a coworker loses their job because of it.
The lead woman turns down a job just to spite the temporary hires who voted for her. It's a much healthier way of looking at things than the crap her colleagues pulled on her.
I read an interview where the Dardenne brothers mentioned a similar real-life situation—someone losing their job for those exact reasons—as the inspiration for the film. So what if the characters look like something out of a newspaper clipping? People actually live this stuff.

Look, dammit, I honestly don't see some hypocritical pattern in the movie. All I see is a depressed protagonist with a guy and two kids who lost her job because her daily coworkers—the ones she grabs coffee with during breaks—turned their backs on her just to chase some bonus. And she's struggling with it. Yeah, I relate to her. Not everyone is built the same. Not everyone handles problems the same way. And not every problem is some massive philosophical crisis. So what if she has a decent, modern little apartment and ordered pizza for the kids? Does that automatically make them high society?

edit: I called out Anderson Cooper, obviously, but that bit does have some weight. What I meant was that we aren't always solely responsible for ourselves, and there are a million better examples than this. In fact, we often depend on others way more than it seems. Are we supposed to be blamed for that?

Jamie Davis9 said:I wasn't attacking any specific movies; I was just saying your claim that hyperrealism builds atmosphere is nonsense, much like the idea that realism and hyperrealism are two opposite ends of the same spectrum. My apologies if that offended you, the films, or the adjective itself.

No, I’m not offended—honestly, you’re the one who started swinging here. And I don't recall ever stating that every single film categorized as hyperrealist necessarily creates an atmospheric effect. You jumped the gun on my actual point, and now we're just bickering over something I never even said.

Walter Grant5 said:and I can't be bothered to argue.

Let's get some things straight:

The movie clearly isn't tackling deep existential crises, considering characters sit in a park eating ice cream while chatting about the situation.
They are surrounded by this fake material security used to signal some sort of "okay" social status, but obviously, that isn't what actually makes people happy—something you see in real life too. I'd say modernization has taken its toll; you don't need to be a peasant to feel suffocated by bad air.

That's not enough here, sorry.
I'm with northerncrane4; they'll keep living perfectly fine. It’s not like they were physicists at NASA or diplomats in D.C., so their standards aren't going to plummet now.

Sometimes I actually agree with old-timers when they say some people just need hard manual labor to stay sane. They'll whine less about rights from an archaic socialist era while they're munching on Snickers and surfing on tablets acting like the world is ending.

The plot turned me off a bit when that couple (one of the first ones, I think) came into the yard and told her they teach kids and can barely make ends meet, so a bonus would mean everything (which is LOGICAL), only for her to just pull a face and shed a tear so the guy feels sorry for them. The point?
Give me a break.

Lisa Williams31 said:That just doesn't cut it here, sorry.
I’m with northerncrane4 on this one; they’re going to keep living perfectly fine. It’s not like they were physicists at NASA or high-level diplomats in D.C., so their standard of living isn't about to take a massive dive.

Sometimes I find myself actually agreeing with those old-school grandmas—that some people just need a little manual labor and hard work to get their heads straight. They’ll complain way less about certain rights from some archaic socialist era while they’re munching on a Snickers and scrolling through a tablet, acting like the world is ending.

The way the scene played out when she went to that couple's yard (one of the first ones, if I recall) really turned my stomach. They tell her they’re teaching kids and struggling to make ends meet, and that a bonus would mean everything to them—which is totally logical—but all she does is pull a face and shed a single tear just so the guy will feel bad for her. The point?
Give me a break.

And maybe the movie can be interpreted as portraying Westerners as spoiled brats, even if that wasn't the director's intention. Personally, the whole heavy social struggle makes me feel a bit nauseous—visiting coworkers while you're in an existential crisis, with your husband waiting for you in a Monte car. Perhaps that's the underlying message.

shadowtinker15 said:Maybe the movie could be read as portraying Western Europeans as spoiled brats, even if that wasn't the director's intent. Honestly, the heavy social struggle makes me nauseous—visiting coworkers out of existential desperation while the husband waits at the cafe. Perhaps that's actually the point.

I hope so, but I highly doubt it given that it was made by a Frenchman, and those guys can basically demand whatever they want from their workers.

Lisa Williams31 said:I’d like to think so, but honestly, I have my doubts. It was made by a Frenchman, and you know how they are—workers over there can pretty much say whatever they want about anything.

That's obviously not the point here. It would be pretty weird if the Dardenne brothers did that in every single movie, so why would they suddenly flip the script now? But still... leaving room for different interpretations of a film? You just can't mess with that.

No one pointed out the film's only truly authentic moment—that selfishly human and emotionally unpredictable reaction from the people he turns to for help.

Walter Grant5 said:The film clearly avoids any deep existential questions—since the characters are too busy discussing the situation over ice cream in the park.
They surround themselves with this fake sense of material security—as if owning things somehow validates their social status—but it’s clearly not what actually brings people fulfillment. It's a pattern you see everywhere in life. I’d argue that "modernization" has played its part here; you don't have to be some unrefined peasant to realize when you're just breathing in toxic air.
People can be absolute jerks to one another just to chase a little extra capital—even when it’s not some life-or-death matter. Honestly, some folks would happily tear down someone else's livelihood just to spruce up their own backyard.

So, some colleagues just vanish from the office for months at a time—it happens. A coworker decides they have a right to their "phantom depression," leaving the rest of the team to pick up the slack. I guess that’s one way to look at it.

Walter Grant5 said:The protagonist turns down the job just to ensure those temporary staffers—the ones who actually voted for her—can keep their positions. It’s a stark, healthy contrast to the way her colleagues treated her.
I read an interview where the Dardenne brothers mention using a real-life situation—someone losing their job under similar circumstances—as the spark for their film. It’s the classic newspaper trope, isn't it? So what? People actually live through this stuff.

As I mentioned in my initial review—if this were actually a documentary capturing a real situation—I’d give it five stars. People act one way when there's a camera rolling. But this is a feature film, and my impression is that the performances feel far too staged. More common. People would act like actual human beings in that situation—even with a camera rolling—simply because of directorial necessity to remain unobtrusive. It’s a technique. The more you strip back the situation, the characters, and the presentation to make it feel "vanilla," the more you project an illusion of authenticity. But let’s be clear: that is a conscious fabrication. Minimalism is not authenticity.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, I honestly don't see any double standards in this film. What I see is a depressed protagonist—someone with actual style, by the way—and two kids who are dealing with her losing her job because her everyday coworkers turned their backs on her just to chase some corporate bonus. She’s struggling with it. And yeah, I empathize with her. Not everyone handles things the same way—not everyone deals with pressure in the same manner. So what if she has a decent, modern apartment and ordered pizza for the kids? Does that somehow make her "high society"?

You aren't talking about the middle class specifically here—not in this post, anyway—but you keep bringing them up. These people in the movie? They aren't middle class. They’re unskilled laborers—just bottom-tier workers in a system that prioritizes education. And yet, they live perfectly decent lives. It's in those "decent" lives where they face suicidal depression and massive moral dilemmas. Someone else mentioned that this film would be more compelling if it approached its "problems" with a sense of irony, and I absolutely agree. The issue is, it doesn't. The protagonist is presented as the hero of the situation. I just can't stomach that—the setup is fake as hell. It’s pure Dada Matanić fakery. Tackling social issues just because they sell well at European film festivals... that isn't art, it's just pandering. I think it's vital to point that out, especially since the audience watching this stuff actually mistakes it for sincere authorship.

Walter Grant5 said:edit: Sure, I went after Anderson Cooper—my bad—but there’s a grain of truth here. What I meant is that we aren't always self-made islands; there are much better ways to put it. In fact, we often rely on others far more than we care to admit. Are we responsible for that?

Well, I suppose it's both yes and no. That's just life. You're dependent on microbes, for one. And every single time you walk down a street in Chicago, you're relying on every driver passing you by not being an idiot.
Everyone exerts some kind of influence on someone else, whether they want to or not. You do, too. So what's the solution?

So you're claiming people haven't done anything to improve their own lives. How does that even work when the individual is the least influential player in a system designed to exert control? This whole setup favors people who already have an edge, giving them more leverage over whatever comes next. You've got folks in a sweet spot because they're offered—for a price—the chance to decide someone else's fate, while that other person is stripped of any say in their own future. The system itself created this mess.

Since when did depression stop being a legitimate psychological illness? What if someone wiped out on a motorcycle and spent two months stuck in a ditch? Or had a massive car wreck?

How can you be so sure that tackling social issues is just some calculated move for film festivals? By that logic, picking a niche topic would be "anti-festival" or some kind of underground statement. That calculation concept can be applied to anything; it’s too easy to twist. Is our little debate here a calculation too? Does that prove your observation is somehow organically authentic? Do we really need to run every single thing through that filter as if it's the ultimate litmus test?

And what, should people just suck up suicidal depression because their material conditions are fine? Since when was having money a prerequisite for mental health? Look at someone like Robin Williams—he commits suicide, and suddenly everyone assumes he was just spoiled?

You depend on things in different ways, sure, but you're less dependent than you think. There's a better shot when influence is balanced out. Look, we aren't directly responsible for the omnipotent idiots abusing their positions, acting "in the interest of the country" while screwing everyone else over. They're the ones shaping the systems, while you're just living in the ones that suit them best. Yeah, that's life. What have I personally done to make things better? That’s the answer to everything.

Lisa Williams31 said:That's just not enough here, sorry.
I'm with northerncrane4 on this—they’ll still live fine. It’s not like they were physicists at NASA or some big-shot diplomat in D.C. whose lifestyle is about to tank.

Sometimes I actually agree with those old-school ladies back home—some people just need a shovel and a hard day's work to clear their heads. They'll whine less about rights from some outdated socialist era while they're munching on Snickers and scrolling through iPads, acting like the world is ending.

The whole scene at the store grossed me out. This couple—one of the first ones I remember seeing—walked up to the manager and explained they teach kids and can barely make ends meet, so a little bonus would mean the world (which makes sense). All she did was pull a face and shed a tear so the guy would feel bad. Point being?
Give me a break.

If they're going to live okay (not starving or homeless), does that mean losing their job didn't hurt them? And she's got kids too.

Besides, they'll be fine without the bonus. You could look at it that way. She didn't really complain after all.

Since when is taking time off for health issues a valid reason to put someone in a position where they lose their job?

Do you even have a job?

Walter Grant5, 👍

I get the feeling some people here would call the directors cheap—like they purposely made a movie about struggling immigrants or families crammed into a tiny apartment with five kids just because the system fails them and jobs are nonexistent. If that were the case, someone would definitely accuse the filmmakers of being pathetic or hypocritical—you know, because most of us crying over these movies live in pretty decent conditions ourselves, showing up to festivals to nod sympatically at tragic fates before heading off to fancy dinner parties.

The moment the protagonist has a halfway decent apartment and a decent car, and we see she’s constantly stressed and maybe not even the most likable person, it becomes hard to feel for her losing her job and the fallout for her family. Her husband works at a bakery. I mean, whose fault is it if they decided to have two kids while working such precarious jobs? Or that she didn't finish college when there was free tuition available? But hey, everyone has the right to not care about her, or better yet, root for her coworkers who are clearly in an even worse spot.

The point is actually different. The film shows that the neoliberal system—which the European Union is pushing so hard right now—is set up so this could happen to anyone. Literally anyone. Anyone falling victim to that same false sense of existential security that Marion and her family feel. My dad, too. Even a capable, smart chemist from La Couperet. All because of some decision made by this guy or that person. Who in America was publicly protesting against the new Labor Law last year?
Instead of focused criticism and actual protest, we just get envy, grumbling, and turning against our former colleagues or friends. It's like, "Sorry you lost your job, but I can't turn down this bonus because I really need the cash," or "Besides, you have a nicer car than me, so whatever." (And honestly, the saddest part is you can't blame anyone for thinking that way.) Dehumanization and a total loss of empathy—fueled by manufactured needs—check.

On a global scale, liberal capitalism is a system that feeds on massive, deep inequalities and creates social friction and huge divides just to expand and move capital around. But naturally, people judge the quality of the system based solely on their own individual situation. They think, "Well, I'm doing okay, so it's your own fault for not working hard enough." It’s like saying, "I’m doing great living on an American salary, so people are just being ridiculous when they complain about the country." And we all know what a massive mess things really are.

I'm not trying to guess the Dardenne brothers' true intentions for making a film like this; I'm just saying I recognized several very real situations from my own surroundings in it, and it wasn't a comfortable watch.

Jamie Davis9 said:hyperrealism inherently lacks atmosphere.

Not really—just look at movies like 'Jeanne Dielman' or even the opening sequence of 'Café Noir.'

though you're right about how '2 Days in...' isn't exactly hyperrealist. like northerncrane4 pointed out—The Coen brothers are actually just carrying on that neo-realist tradition.