Monogamy (2010)

Brilliant and touching

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The film, as I see it, shows that Theo and Nat are stuck in the so-called erotic block. Clues are numerous, though rather understated. The title of the film is somewhat ironic, if not paradoxical. There is monogamy and monogamy. What Theo encounters in his tracking down of the exhibitionist blonde is the erotic side of that often humdrum institution called "marriage", or monogamy for that matter. In other words, Theo encounters what can happen to be the gateway to heaven on earth and can help monogamy become erotic and thus thriving (counterintuitive though this may seem culturally). An erotic couple may engage in role play thus allowing themselves to enter altered states of consciousness (for it's in the brain that eroticism burgeons, sex being merely a function) after which they happily return to "normal". Goes without saying, it shouldn't be taken for a recipe, i.e. success formula, which would be rather reductionist, for art is metaphor, first and foremost... The actor Chris Messina renders the anguish of the fellow about to enter what "only death should the couple part" in a beautifully nuanced way that testifies to the depth of his talent.

I agree with Hrunting that the idea floated in this movie - creating a business model where you're paid as a personal paparazzo could make for a interesting meditation on the need for attention, which could go either in a dramatic or satirical direction. However, this is not that movie. Instead, we have a soap opera with voyeurism and obsession as a plot device designed to drive the couple apart.I think the actors do a great deal nonetheless with the material, and portray their characters convincingly. The breakup scene is excruciating, because all she's asking for is a reason to stay with him and he can't articulate one. I didn't like his character or his decisions, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie or a bad performance; he was convincing enough in the role that he was believable.My biggest problem with it is that the whole concept wasn't plausible. Does anyone really think that in the internet age, with exhibitionists of all kinds online at any moment of every day, that a guy in his 30s in NYC would seriously find the private life of "subgirl" so compelling? Compelling enough to abandon his fiancée at the hospital? And even if such a guy existed, is it plausible to think any woman would get into a relationship with someone so sexually immature and emotionally backward? Not to mention getting engaged to him.I don't mind watching movies about dumb characters, but this movie treated me as if I was the dumb one.

A photographer in Brooklyn named Theo, who normally snaps traditional wedding photos, recently started a service called "gumshoot." Participants are shot while they go about a scheduled activity of their choice while he hides in the shadows to capture something more genuine and then later gives the resulting photos in person. After about a dozen or so clients, he thinks he's got a pretty good impression of what to expect, such as an older gentleman carrying about a carefree day in the city with no scandal or malice involved. Though after getting contacted by the mysterious "Subgirl," for what's supposed to be a regular day on the tennis courts, he gets sucked into something more voyeuristic and naughty when she touches herself and only he can see it. She eludes meeting face to face and lets him choose the photos to send to an anonymous PO box, which not only builds up intrigue but places the rest of his life into a tailspin.This essentially films the last stages of Theo (Chris Messina) just before he plans on getting married in drawn out and slow sequences. For those not familiar with such deliberately paced films, the key word is "natural": loose hand-held shots to make it more edgy, fractured dialogue that comes with enough stammering to compete with "The King's Speech," and casual humor that's so dry you could spark a brushfire. There are a few hints dropped to what it was like in the past with his fiancé Nat (Rashida Jones), though this tried to show a breakdown in only a short duration by having him question himself and lose all perspective just from his fiancé not giving him any, to the perverse new client Subgirl, as well as his two buddies--one bossed around in marriage and the other separated but happy in single life. They frequently attempt to have the camera do the talking and the main actor capture subtle emotion on his face for what he's contemplating and going through. However a proper outline of the past wasn't entirely established and the scenarios at present--despite being extensively shot--don't seem detrimental enough to sabotage what he has going for himself on a whim. It's hard to relate or reason with almost anything he's doing except to say he feels trapped and is using this as a long and fanciful way out."Monogamy" tried to be purely emotion as a share of Theo's motivations are based on raw feelings rather than life experiences or even logic. Eventually it makes you want slap the character up side the head because he's so catered to one side and tell him to just make a decision instead of acting like an immature 30-something adult who still uses passive aggressive behavior like a teenager. Theo starts to sulk, become erratic and sheltered from those around him. This isn't afraid to show him in a negative light, as he turns into a corner dweller, binge drinker, pot smoker, mask wearer, snooper, restroom masturbator, semi-cross dresser and in his self-destruction pushes his nice and pretty fiancé away because monogamy is terrifying and how he's behaving apparently isn't to himself but some kind of screwball way of coping till a magic solution pops up. It's ridiculous that someone who lives in a bustling city and with access to thousands upon thousands of websites that show pornographic videos and images nowadays would be so naive and sheltered that this Subgirl woman would be cause enough to throw off his entire outlook from taking snap shots of her on only the second occasion. I mean this isn't some small town yokel or even young enough to be believably impressionable like Kyle MacLachlan's character in the film "Blue Velvet." He turns into an amateur detective to find out more about Subgirl, though the movie moves at such a lethargic pacing that the final secret about how to make it work in a monogamist relationship--while dissimilar to the usual material a la "Unfaithful"--is pretty evident by the halfway mark.There's some potential here. The gumshoot concept that involves sneaking around to naturally capture someone was an intriguing idea. Just imagine how many people's vacation photos you might accidentally be in that are probably more natural than all those posed ones. It shows that not all relationships have to go the conventional route to work. It's nice to see a movie that at least makes an attempt at growth with characters, though I'd like to think "Monogamy" could have improved with some more back-story, possibly a younger cast or a smaller setting to make it more convincing towards their behavior, or some tighter edits in other areas where nothing substantial was going on besides the camera just rolling to get lucky and stumble upon something. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/)

Monogamy (2010) was co-written and directed by Dana Adam Shapiro. The basic concept of the film is interesting. A photographer--Theo, played by Chris Messina--moonlights as "Gumshoot." Gumshoot is hired by people to take candid shots of themselves. It's an interesting thought--what do we look like when we're being photographed, but we aren't posing.The problem begins when Theo starts to photograph a striking blonde woman with whose life he becomes obsessed. This obsession begins to control him and eventually begins to cause a split between Theo and his fiancé Nat (Rashida Jones). I can't identify with a guy who doesn't have all that much going for him, and yet puts a wonderful relationship in jeopardy in order to follow his obsession. Of course, that's the point of the movie--if the obsession made sense, it wouldn't really be an obsession. If you can see things from Theo's point of view, you'll enjoy the movie. If not, probably not.We saw this film, at the Rochester 360-365 Film Festival. (Dumb name, but good festival.) It will work better on a large screen than a small screen, because part of the enjoyment comes from seeing the Brooklyn and Manhattan locations. In my opinion, not a film worth seeking out, but probably worth a look, especially if you're from NYC.