BOOKS AND ARTS JULY 24, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
(500) Days of Summer is a story of boy meets girl, but it is not a love story. We know this because a basso profundo narrator (Richard McGonagle) tells us so in the opening moments of the film. The boy, Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), ought to know this, too, because the girl, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), has informed him that she is not interested in having a boyfriend, that she wants to avoid anything “serious,” and that she considers love an illusion. But Tom does not believe Summer, and to a considerable degree neither do we. Is this because we’ve been conditioned by the romantic tropes of Hollywood? Because love is so much more pleasant to presume than its absence? Because Ms. Deschanel is so unfathomably adorable? Perhaps a bit of each.
Alas, the story begins as the relationship ends, on Day 290 of the titular 500. Over the saddest pancakes I can recall seeing captured on film, Tom and Summer bicker (Her: “All we do is argue”; Him: “That is bullshit”) before she offers a variation on the five cruelest words in the English language, “You’re still my best friend.”
From this sad hinge, the movie swivels forward and back, telling two stories in alternation: Tom’s diligent attempt to construct a love affair with Summer, and his forlorn efforts to disentangle himself from the debris of its collapse. We leap from Day 28 to Day 303 to Day 167 to Day 408, oscillating between early hope and ultimate despair, the sudden, unbidden revelation of love and the slow, crushing realization that it is not requited.
The former half of the story, in particular, is told with light-fingered grace: It’s been some time since I’ve seen a film that captures with such immediacy the elation and anxiety of new love, the tingle and the terror, the profound sense that you have never been more alive and the occasional wish that you could die on the spot. And if the post-breakup narrative suffers somewhat in comparison--the humor becomes too broad on occasion, and Deschanel is in scarcer evidence--it doesn’t truly stumble until the final scenes, which are a bit forced and unsatisfying.
The otherwise sharp script is by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, whose only previous produced screenplay was for the woeful Pink Panther 2--suggesting either that the writing duo suffers from some form of bipolar disorder, or that getting one’s foot in the door in contemporary Hollywood requires abasements more degrading than any casting couch. In this instance, Neustadter and Weber borrow widely but shrewdly. A clever, early reference to The Graduate acquires more weight later in the proceedings. A musical celebration of consummated bliss draws heavily on Amy Adams’s song-and-dance promenade through Central Park in Enchanted. An understated architectural tour of Los Angeles recalls Sam Waterston’s Big Apple presentation in Hannah and Her Sisters. There are nods to Bergman and Fellini on the one hand, Swayze and Hasselhoff on the other.
But the cultural artifact upon which Neustadter and Weber lean upon most heavily is Annie Hall. Unlike When Harry Met Sally, which self-consciously aped the style and humor of that film, (500) Days of Summer instead pilfers from its grab-bag of cinematic stunts: a fourth-wall demolition here, a split-screen effect there. Most of all though, the movie borrows Annie Hall’s wistful frame, a glimpse of early love refracted through the lens of its ultimate failure. No, (500) Days of Summer is no Annie Hall. But it does not embarrass itself in begging the comparison.
The varied elements are kept moving comfortably by first-time feature director Mark Webb, who comes to us from music videos and puts his experience to good use. The soundtrack, which draws from sources as varied as the Smiths, Hall & Oates, and the current First Lady of France, has the eclectic ingenuity that indie film often promises but seldom delivers, and Webb integrates his musical set pieces with uncommon finesse.
Like so many indie romances--High Fidelity is another obvious antecedent--the movie is unbalanced by design. We see the central relationship through Tom’s eyes exclusively, with Summer ultimately remaining as unknowable to us as she is to him. But then, it advertises as much right there in the title: He’s the one who’s limited to 500 days of Summer; she’ll be keeping her own company for a lifetime.
The leads fulfill the demands of their respective roles--his certainty, her reticence--with genuine charm and tenderness. Gordon-Levitt, who’s delivered some fine but emotionally remote performances in the past (in Brick, for instance), opens up considerably as Tom. Though he squints through gunfighter eyes, as if unable to bear the full luminosity of the object of his longing, he can’t help but wear his heart on his sleeve, and shirt collar, and trouser legs.
And Deschanel? Suffice to say that in an alternate reality in which I ran Hollywood, it is her star rather than Kate Hudson’s that would have ascended following Almost Famous, in which she appeared, too briefly, as William Miller’s flight-attending older sister. What followed instead has been, with few exceptions (All the Real Girls clearest among them), a decade of barely differentiated good-girl supporting roles (Elf, The Happening, Yes Man). By contrast, (500) Days of Summer takes full advantage of Deschanel’s offbeat radiance, the way her giant, Bahama-blue eyes flicker between focused and unfocused, knowing and innocent. Tom’s poor heart never stood a chance.
Christopher Orr is a senior editor of The New Republic.
9 comments
I've not seen the film, but this character sounds a lot like me in my 20s. The only part that doesn't sound like me is that she believed love was an illusion. I didn't believe that, but didn't think it meant you had to keep advancing your relationship towards marraige either. Marraige was the furthest thing from my mind (well having kids was further), even when I felt strongly for someone. So I had boyfriends who I loved (in a sense) and kept them at arm's length if they became too attached. When they would get too serious or start talking about "where this was going" I would feel morally obligated to break up with them so they could pursue something with someone who wanted what they did. (Most are divorced now.) I liked (or in some cases loved) being with them, but I didn't want to marry them & didn't envision the rest of my life with them. I had too much I wanted to do independently. I still had to travel and move from city to city and find my career passion & make my way. Now in my late 30s and settled on one city with occasional travel, I would very much like a lasting relationship,to get married,& to even have a baby, but am still independent and single both because I don't spend time seeking a partner (although sometimes I think I should, but I'm just focused on pursuing life, social and career interests), and because I refuse to have a relationship just to have one or because I'm supposed to, or because everyone else is. I'd rather be alone because I quite like being alone, and being committed to the wrong person is miserable (and not fair to either party). Just thought I'd share, since apparently this is perceived as unusual for women & to me it just felt like my gut instinct to wait. I've no regrets & I don't intend to have any, whatever happens. Lots of solo time has made me more mature and interesting and a better potential partner for the right guy.
- Maggie C
July 24, 2009 at 11:42am
Maggie C, your description of your independence and your relationship ethic matches my sense of an ideal girlfriend. Best wishes for your life's journey.
- Jim
July 24, 2009 at 12:27pm
Maggie C., you sound like a great character for a story. :) Your reflection and self-determination are unusual qualities. I hope your choices prove to have been the best ones for you, to the extent we can choose our fortunes. (Luck, and the impossibility of what-ifs, are always distractions.) To be candid, you lose me in your last 2 sentences, which to my ear are more assertion than conviction. Good luck, and maybe give that relationship a shot.... Or not, but consider raising a child anyway! And I'd like to see the movie....
- AndrewD
July 24, 2009 at 2:23pm
good review chris. almost makes me want to see the movie. commenters -- im sorry you're all miserable (especially you maggie), like im sure i probably am as well. if you stop telling yourselves you're happy, it gets a bit better.
- jackson5
July 24, 2009 at 2:53pm
Just remember Pokler's song in Gravity's Rainbow (when're they making a movie of that, by the way? I wonder if it'd get made in Chris' ideal Hollywood): Won't somebody take advantage of me? Just a slave with nobody to slave for, A-and who th' heck wants ta be, free? (All together now, all you masochists out there, specially those of you don't have a partner tonight, alone with those fantasies that don't look like they'll ever come true--want you just to join in here with your brothers and sisters, let each other know you're alive and sincere, try to break through the silences, try to reach through and connect...) Aw, the sodium lights-aren't, so bright in Berlin, I go to the bars dear, but nobody's in! Oh, I'd much rather bee In a Greek Trage-dee, Than be a VICTIM IN A VACUUM [that's us, commenters] to-nite!
- jackson5
July 24, 2009 at 3:05pm
Thanks, Jim. That's nice. I haven't been one in a while but I believe I'm a good one when given the right man (and one with the same timing). ;-) Best wishes to you as well. Glad to know honest independence is appreciated.
- Maggie C
July 24, 2009 at 4:39pm
AndrewD, Thanks :-) haha! Sometimes I feel like a character in a story. It will be interesting to see this film actually, because so often I don't totally identify so much with the female characters out there, and I may just get this one. I do root for her to find love with a man who loves her though, even if it's not with this particular one who pines for her. I'm a romantic at heart. (Just an independent and practical one, if that's possible). As for luck- I believe we create our own & that a lot comes down to where we are personally at a certain time of life combined with someone else in the same stage, and that is sometimes the biggest draw. I am more drawn (as boyfriend material) to men who I see know how to take care of themselves and are attuned to the needs of others now, rather than one who is "cute" or listens to cool music. I'm not gonna lie- I recently had a wonderful little fling with a 25 year old- tall, dark, handsome, funny and fun to talk with. We both knew what it was & enjoyed it. He was passing through town. Perfect man for a fling, yes. Perfect for the life partner I seek, no. Unrelated to our fleeting little adventure, he is contending with the same thing about wanting to date without wanting the long-term (we had a long interesting pillow talk about such things)and not wanting to hurt anyone, just like me in my 20s. And so he finds himself in the arms of me- a woman 13 years his senior (though he made me feel v. young) who knows that one night with him is one night with him and who doesn't have issue with that. Like a great bottle of wine that you drink and then it's gone. My time is here to find someone to be with for the long haul, his time will come too. I can tell. He's not a jerk (although many a hurt piner may call him that), he's a sensitive 20 something guy who knows well, as I did about myself at that age, it is not time for a big heavy commitment. Instead of engaging in one anyway, he does the things he needs to to make himself more interesting and experienced, cultured and mature- travels, meets new people, excels at his career, etc. He will be a big catch in 10 years and may be ready to be caught- but only by the right woman in the same life stage as he. And by that time I may be holding the hand of a husband and a child. As for the last two sentences you mention- they are both assertions and convictions. You can prefer something turns out a certain way, as I do, but be open to the idea that it could turn out even better, if differently, from expected. As you mentioned- maybe I will reach a time when I am unattached but want a child and adopt or something. When you're open to love at the right time and for the right reasons, and you don't force an agenda but gently allow that which you want to happen, I'm not sure much can go wrong. That's how I see it anyway ;-)
- Maggie C
July 24, 2009 at 6:15pm
Jackson5, Who is happy all the time? Why is it assumed if you would like a relationship but aren't currently in one that you are unhappy all the time? I guess many people cannot be happy in the absence of a relationship (I suspect that might be you-better to have anyone than no one?). I'm so glad I don't feel that way. Sometimes I miss being in a relationship, sometimes it's sad, but most of the time I just feel genuinely lucky to have the life (and frankly the freedom) I do, and the good judgement to stay single (with the very occasional fling or date) and let the mr. wrongs pass me by with a newly keen eye out for mr. right. :-)
- Magge C
July 24, 2009 at 6:32pm
Maggie C (and yes everyone else, I promise this is the last), you're smart. I don't think there is a best way -- e.g., kids or no kids, spouse or none -- just many ways. If you're happy, you're doing something right. My trailing comment was more that you may have no regrets but seem to sense you are on the verge of forming some. I think that's a really compelling phase to traverse. Count our blessings. I look forward to seeing the movie, which looks a bit unsubtle but wistfully funny. Amusingly from the trailer my 9 y.o. boy really wants to see it. (P.S. Yes, high five on bagging the younger'un ... ;-) Sorry the bottle was single serving.)
- AndrewD
July 26, 2009 at 2:11am