Two Days, One Night

Two days, one night.

It’s a sub-par production. Underwritten, underdirected, underfilmed, underacted—under everything. It’s basically just Celebrity-porn. You have ordinary people in incredibly ordinary situations reacting in an incredibly ordinary way. If this were a documentary, I’d say it was fine—but for a feature film, I expect more than just a series of observations.

northerncrane4 said:So-called celebrity-porn. Just regular people in totally mundane situations reacting in a completely predictable way. It works fine as a documentary, I suppose, but when it comes to a feature film, I really expect something more than just stating the obvious.

Ognjen Sviličić? Well, since I actually went to see his latest flick, 'That's Just How It Is', for work recently, I was sitting here trying to figure out how to articulate what exactly was missing from it—it wasn't terrible, mind you (his other stuff is better)—but then you hit me with the term celebrity-porn and realized you basically nailed the exact sentiment I was struggling to put into words. 👍
p.s. assuming, of course, you weren't talking about Nick.

Jamie Davis9 said:p.s.—and that’s assuming you weren't talking about Nick.

Nobody is thinking about Nick.

northerncrane4 said:Nobody actually gives a damn about Nick.

🤣 Well, that certainly puts my mind at ease.

Smuđ, why would some gritty realist flick go and contradict itself? What exactly are you picking up from a movie that lays things out plain and simple? If it didn't, it'd be something else entirely, and then the whole point just evaporates.

Walter Grant5 said:Smuđ, why would such a pretentious "realistic" film deny its own existence?

It doesn't have to deny itself—I'm the one denying this fake realism. I could churn out ten of these staged movies every ten weeks if I wanted to. Seriously. To me, the script and the execution have all the depth of a random episode of some cheap daytime soap opera. You don't need an ounce of actual talent to write or shoot something like this. Is the film accurate? Sure—about as accurate as filming a plastic tree. Forget "auteurism"—that's just the main ingredient when you're actively rejecting authorship. That's my take.

Look, you're missing the point. That soap opera analogy doesn't work because soaps rely on these totally unrealistic, over-the-top caricatures. Plus, even when they try to go big, the acting is just banal and transparent—it feels like a bunch of unpaid interns working for student credits. Soap operas don't actually have a message or deep substance buried in the plot; the plots *are* the content. This movie, though? It’s got structure, it’s got a soul, and the issues it hits on are real. To me, it nails that specific kind of fragility you see in middle-class American life. Everything looks polished and comfortable on the surface, but one wrong move and the whole thing falls apart. A feature film doesn't need some crazy, heightened setup to be effective; it can be perfectly mediocre and still hit hard.

I mean, sure, you could go shoot something like 12 Angry Men if you wanted to.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, you can't do that. That soap opera analogy just doesn't hold water—soap operas rely on these totally surreal, over-the-top caricatures. Plus, even within those exaggerated setups, the execution is usually just plain banal and transparent; it feels like they’re just going through the motions to fulfill some low-budget contract. Soap operas don't actually have a message or any real depth derived from their plots—it's actually the opposite: the plots themselves *are* the only content. On the other hand, this movie actually has substance, a clear direction, and a relevant theme, all backed by convincing performances. To me, it perfectly captures that fragility found in average capitalist societies. Everything looks polished and comfortable on the surface, but the whole thing could fall apart if you just poked it the wrong way. A feature film doesn't need "special" scenarios to work; it can be built on perfectly mediocre situations.

And besides, you could always just film something like "12 Angry Men," right? Let's not go down that road.

Well, for some people, they do. My grandmother used to watch soap operas and swear out loud at the screen. Then she'd end up lamenting the state of human nature based on some random character.

And why did you bring up "12 Angry Men" now? What was the point of that?

hiddenbear4 said:Some people just do that. My grandma used to watch soap operas and swear at the screen. Then she'd go on some deep rant about "human nature" because of some random character.

but that’s not some deep message from the soap opera writer. that’s just someone overthinking a commercial for porch lights.

So why did you bring up "12 Angry Men"? What was the point?

especially when Smuđ says that given how they work, the Dardenne brothers could crank out 10 movies like this in 10 weeks.

nothing against "12 Angry Men," though.

Walter Grant5 said:Please—you can't.

Look, I’m telling you—it’s possible. Honestly, it surprises me that there isn't an app already doing this—you feed a week's worth of American news headlines into a database, let it pick one at random, and then have it run through an algorithm. It would spit out a script built on a series of predictable half-truths, populated by characters designed from statistical samples of the American public—where nobody does anything truly scandalous or surprising, and in the end, absolutely nothing changes.

Walter Grant5 said:That soap opera analogy doesn't hold water—those shows rely on caricatured situations and even more ridiculous, over-the-top characters.

The point was the sheer simplicity of it—writing and filming a gritty, realistic screenplay versus some soap opera episode. Both follow the exact same tired formulas.

Walter Grant5 said:Even under those caricatured conditions, the performances feel banal—transparently shallow, like they were filmed on a shoestring student budget. Soap operas lack any real substance or message; the plot twists *are* the only content. This film, however, actually has teeth—it possesses both structure and a relevant core, backed by an incredibly convincing performance.

This movie is completely hollow. The premise doesn't offer anything unique—it just drags itself along without ever actually unfolding. And I have to tell you—when the lead actress first muttered, "I can't cry"—the whole thing started feeling incredibly artificial to me.

Walter Grant5 said:You see, the sheer fragility of this average capitalist society is laid bare here—it looks polished and comfortable on the surface, but you could actually dismantle the whole thing just by snapping your thumb and middle finger together.

Nothing is going to change. She’ll just sit on welfare until she stumbles into some other dead-end, unskilled job—or she'll succumb to depression. Whatever. She isn't even a real person at this point; she's just a rag with someone else's face pasted onto it.

Haven't you seen Le Couperet by Costa Gavras? That’s just it— A feature film on this subject—now that’s an idea.

Walter Grant5 said:On the other hand—you could always just film twelve angry people instead—but let's not go down that road.

Haha, obviously you can't. "12 Angry Men" is a masterclass in screenwriting—that's the fundamental difference between those two films.

Walter Grant5 said:—but those aren't really the "intended messages" from whoever wrote the soap opera. That’s just someone reading way too much into a backyard lighting commercial.

Ugh, let's not go down that road... how can you even claim to know what the "intended messages" of some soap opera writer are? At the end of the day, everything you're saying is just your own interpretation of some media text.

Walter Grant5 said:—and when Smuđ says that, given the style of a Dardenne film, they could probably shoot ten of them in ten weeks.

Anyway, I'm not saying anything negative about 12 Angry Men.

I get all five points, but I still don't see why that movie was brought up here. What does a Dardenne film have to do with 12 Angry Men?

Look, you don't need some massive scandal or huge shifts to make a point. If you go that route, "average" just stops working. Any big spike away from the norm is an outlier—it turns the movie into something else entirely. Which is fine, I guess, but then you aren't really talking about the reality of the American middle class; you're just telling one guy's weird, extreme story.

The movie actually has substance because if it didn't, an average life wouldn't have any either. And we both know this one has meat on its bones. You find the most nuance in the middle ground; extremes are just their own thing.

But nothing's gonna change. She’ll just sit on welfare until she lands some dead-end, unskilled job. Or she'll just die of depression.

It’s about the slow grind of human decay and misery. Why does that matter to me and not you? Because it happens all the time without being "special"? Exactly. It's mundane. That's why we've reached this stage of total apathy—we only give a damn about stuff that's loud and extreme. Screw that, then.

I'm with you on those 12 angry men, taking that comparison back.

I'll check out Le Couperet, I promise.

hiddenbear4 said:Don't even go there... how the hell do you even know what those "author's intended messages" are supposed to be? Everything you're saying is just your own spin on some single news article.

Look, why bother? The writer of *Soap* is basically the whole damn house, not just one or two people. And they all use the exact same playbook—just throwing together these messy webs of circumstance that always follow the same tired pattern. In the end, the funniest part is how the biggest trash pile ends up being the highlight. You can't tell me that's some calculated message. On the flip side, maybe it’s just basic stuff. A story about a woman losing her job because of some corporate bonus scheme, literally begging to get it back... filming that right now, in the middle of this brutal era of American capitalism, could actually be a massive critique of the system. We just pretend the "content" isn't the point. That's my take. It matters. It doesn't need to be some over-the-top, cinematic spectacle to actually mean something.

All five of you, I still don't get why we're even talking about that movie here. What does anything by the Dardenne brothers have to do with "12 Angry Men"?

Just like that soap opera vibe from the Dardenne films. We dragged twelve angry people along for the ride, so we might as well have brought some soap too.

Walter Grant5 said:It doesn’t even require a crisis—or some massive, scandalous overhaul—to be true. At that level, "average" simply doesn't cut it.
Every significant spike in the data is an outlier—it points toward something else entirely. If that were the case, we wouldn't be watching this movie; we'd be watching a different one. That’s fine, I suppose—but it wouldn't actually tell us anything about the reality of the American middle class. It would just be a story about one specific individual's situation—a single, isolated jump.

Do I have the right to ignore the "average"? Actually—can I just claim that the average doesn't even exist? Everything is either above or below it. If a film focuses on being "average," then it isn't dealing with reality at all. If characters are just "average," they aren't real people—they're just statistical data points.

Walter Grant5 said:A film needs substance—because without it, even an average life lacks any real meaning.

Look, Walter Grant5—give me a break. There isn’t even a concept of "content" in that sense, regardless of how much substance a movie might have. Life isn't just a collection of "content." Can you actually describe the "content" of your life? Or the "content" of your day—even a single hour? And even if you could, your version of life wouldn't be Life itself. I mean, do you actually follow what I'm saying, or am I going to have to rephrase this for you?

Walter Grant5 said:A process of human decay and torment—why is that relevant to me, yet somehow isn't to you?

The only issue is that this film skips the process entirely—we’re just seeing one isolated phase of something much larger. We could go in circles trying to define what that "something" actually is. Should I start? Maybe we should just pull this into its own dedicated thread.

Walter Grant5 said:I'll get around to watching Le Couperet—I promise.

👍 This movie matters—specifically if you're looking to crack the code on how to land a spot at a major film festival.

Walter Grant5 said:Everything captured today—right in the middle of this brutal era of capitalism—serves as a blatant indictment of the entire system.

Just saw this too.
Is this really what we call "ruthless capitalism" today? Seriously? Walter Grant5—come on now. Go back to your books or whatever.

I mean, looking at how things are now, has there ever been a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots than what we’re seeing today? Does anyone actually think anything else matters more? Even at the bottom, people are constantly eyeing each other sideways just because of money.

When I talk about "average," I’m not talking about some mathematical line on a graph. I mean that whole mass of people hovering around the middle. The folks in that movie are just circling this imaginary center point, right? Since they aren't real, and you said in your first post that they were—that the movie feels so grounded that people react to it like it's real life. Yeah, well, I guess that's exactly what they were aiming for.

know what the issue is? I get why it bugs you, and I’m really trying to see it through your lens, but I just can't shake my gut reaction to how this movie plays out. The vibe hit me hard—it felt like looking at the same gritty reality I deal with every damn day working different shifts in the city, and honestly, it still gets under my skin. It’s good to talk about it though, fuck it, I'm not gonna lie to myself.

Look, you're entitled to hate on the "mundane" stuff, totally fine. Just don't blame the movie for it when it was clearly aiming for exactly that. That much is obvious. There wasn't some hidden agenda or "we meant to do this" bullshit going on. It laid everything out plain and simple.

edit: if there isn't already a thread for this, let's start one and move this over. gotta run.

Walter Grant5 said:--given how much people are aware of everything now--is there actually a bigger gap between the rich and the poor than what we see today? do people even consider anything more important? even at the lowest levels, people are looking at each other sideways because of capital.

But that’s because we have it too good, not because things are too bad. People today—speaking about Western civilization—are mostly just spoiled brats.

Walter Grant5 said:when I say average, I don't mean a specific line; I mean a sort of mass clustering around the middle, and the people depicted in this film are hovering around that perceived center, which isn't really there.

No. The people in this film are hovering around the perceived center of festival movie tropes.

Walter Grant5 said:how are they not real? in your first post you said they were—that the film is so ordinary that people react realistically in actual situations. fine, yeah, that's clearly the goal.

I didn't say they react realistically in *actual* situations, just that they act normally in *ordinary* ones. Those aren't real situations. They are dramatic setups used when someone wants to depict "ordinariness."

Walter Grant5 said:you know what the problem is? I get what bothers you and I'm trying to see the film through your eyes, but I simply can't shake my organic reaction to watching it. the atmosphere hit me hard—it's a certain reality that I practically see every day in various suburbs, and it always bothers me; seeing it again just bothers me again. I think it's good to talk about it, damn it, I can't lie to myself.

There's no denying it needs to be discussed, but it needs to be discussed seriously. And seriously speaking—what did this protagonist actually *do*, assuming she's a real person, to deserve things getting better for her? What did any of her unqualified coworkers do to deserve a $1,000 monthly or annual bonus? Why should we feel for any of them? Just out of some vague sense of universal empathy? These are just standard dramatic patterns; they aren't people. Films like this aren't made to raise questions, but to make the festival crowd feel empathetic.
Compare this film to de Sic. Compare it to "Umbert D." It's night and day in terms of characterization and storytelling.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, you're entitled to find "ordinariness" boring—fair enough. Just don't hold it against a film that set out to be exactly what it is. There’s no ambiguity here; they didn't miss the mark by accident. It’s all right there in plain sight.

In other words—it's purely calculated.

Has nobody else noticed that massive incompetence?
And what, he just gets fired?
There are unemployment benefits to tide you over until you find something else—at least in parts of Europe where workers actually have more protections than our own Congressmen.

It’s like some sort of Sofijin choice made with a side of grits.

If I were in the lead character's shoes, I’d probably have more fight left in me; it’s hard to sleep when the adrenaline is still surging through your veins. But when someone is fighting a losing battle against depression while also being crushed by society and the system, it’s easy for everyone else to just sit back and pity them...

Think about that scene where she walks into her bedroom and collapses onto the floor instead of the bed. That’s the essence of this movie right there...

Walter Grant5 said:Do you know what the issue is? I get why it bugs you—I’m really trying to see the movie through your eyes—but I just can't shake my own gut reaction to it. The atmosphere hit me hard; it felt like a reality I deal with almost every day in various industries, and it always gets under my skin. It’s uncomfortable, but honestly, it’s good to talk about it—I can't lie to myself.

I feel exactly the same way—totally identical vibes.

I don't think this movie was necessarily meant to pinpoint the core of the entire problem or build out an elaborate backstory for every single person—like, I don't know, staging some big revolution where all the factory workers suddenly realize how cruel the system is and worry they might be laid off tomorrow because of some new neoliberal "budget cutting" policy.
For me, I saw the reality in this film, and the characters didn't feel cardboard to me—I learned just enough about them. Even that scene where the father and son fight felt a bit much—it’s like, okay, we see the son is the bad guy now, got it. I didn't need all that judgment regarding characters who wouldn't give up their bonuses. I just think what was shown was what needed to be shown. Just a little slice of life—one specific instance of trying to build worker solidarity.
@ Mad Dog — maybe it’s just a case of people identifying too closely with their jobs. It’s probably not even about the job being their one and only way to survive. You can tell by the end that losing her job isn't the end of the world. It's just hard to break certain habits and comfort zones, especially when the US job market is so unpredictable right now. I’m fine with the fact that Marion and her family aren't living in extreme poverty. Some might call her inconsiderate for asking for solidarity from a colleague with a dozen kids who clearly has it tougher, though.

As for Couperet, I’ve mentioned before that the film didn't really blow me away. It lacked subtlety and that subversive edge you'd expect given the subject matter... I mean, there's that specific monologue about how in ancient China they used to leave children in the mountains to save food, or something like that, yet today we discard people right at the peak of their productivity.
It has its good moments, for sure—that dark humor is there. Then you have that Fight Club-style "you are not your job" rhetoric 😁 (that identity thing I mentioned earlier), and it touches on immigration issues and stuff like that. But it all ends up kind of overshadowed by that silly murder plot.