"Two for the Road", "Bob & Carole & Ted & Alice", "Barefoot in the Park", Many films that subverted the fairy-tale stock phrase "They got married and lived happily ever after" spread during the New Hollywood period, perhaps boosted by the success of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf". Speaking of 1966, Roger Ebert compared Stanley Donen's "Two for the Road" to Golden Palm winner "A Man and a Woman" insisting that the former was a more mature version of the latter, one that conceded that love ain't always the alpha and omega of an everlasting marital bond.
I'm surprised though that Ebert didn't think of mentioning the co-winner of the Golden Palm, the Italian comedy "Signore & Signori" also known as "The Birds, the Bees and the Italians". In a more upbeat comedic tone, the film explored the many hypocrisies and hidden ordeals of marriage, let's call it a less serious but no less mature version of Donen's film. Now, I guess there are many factors on which depend the way you experience "Two for the Road" and being or having been married is certainly not the least of them.
Well, let me lay the cards at once: I have been married, I divorced, I'm in a couple again, have a child with each woman, and right now, I can't tell if I'll be with the same woman in 10 years. Nothing to do with love but one can't reach 40 without understanding that nothing can be anticipated and love isn't the only variable in the equation. But on more trivial level I went through the usual arguments on the road, the embarrassing displays of dirty-linen washing even in hush-hush mode, the way one word too many can push the anger button ... and one benign last-minute conversation leads you to that big quarrel where you end up on a sofa questioning yourself: why am I inflicting this to myself?
The Oscar-nominated script was written by Frederic Raphael, from his recollection of various trips across the South of France and Italy. It has the merit to insist that marriage isn't a fairy tale, and it raises important points about why people spend lives together. Once again, love isn't enough. Sometimes marriage makes you feel like being 'hooked' and be entangled in responsibilities that make love a weapon as much as a target. And so "Two for the Road" follows the marital life of two straight shooters: Mark and Joanna Wallace in a span of twelve years that -and this should be specified- is exposed in a non-linear way without any transition apart from a few clever cuts.
That was a deliberate choice from director Stanley Donen, who, didn't want to make it a series of intertwined vignettes but a true examination of marriage at different steps. That they aren't shot like flashbacks implies that they should be considered at the present time, not as a set-up or a foreshadowing. According to Donen, the experience is better if the picture is made of temporal juxtaposition, linearity would've made it dull and banal. In fact we have to look at the present as a result of the past, which is exactly the reality of marriage; we marry for a future but linger on the past. Still, it's not always easy to follow and the back-and-forth trips provoke sometimes a certain dizziness.
The film opens with Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn's long faces, they see an unhappy newly wed couple and she notices that they don't smile "why should they, they're getting married" dryly retorts Mark. That opening line can be misleading by insinuating this is an exercise in cynicism, in fact it's only to show that these two know each other so well they just can't kid themselves. They have come to that phase where they can stop pretending and denude their hearts from the whole romantic BS. But one can't help but feel sorry for Audrey Hepburn who was used to more benevolent partners. While Finney plays the hardened one who never changes (not even physically), Hepburn as usual knows how to internalize in delicate classiness, Donen who had worked with her in "Funny Face" and "Charade" knew her so well he couldn't have throwing dishes or going into loud tantrums. Her eyes speak a thousand words. Not that she's immune to criticism as her husband points out, "Just because you use a silencer doesn't mean you're not a sniper.", a line that could sum up my perception of the two women of my life.
And in this patchy narrative we see tensions rising and deflating from one episode to another, leaving us with the impression that these people argue because they know each other so well. That's what you call complicity. When they travel together Mark's ex-girlfriend Cathy Manchester (Eleanor Bron), her husband (William Daniels) and their insufferable daughter Ruth 'Ruthie' (Gabrielle Middleton, the stares they exchange say everything.
Still, for all its noble intentions, the jigsaw puzzle structure can be really difficult to follow: except if you have a keen eye on Audrey Hepburn's wardrobe and haircut evolution. It's obvious she gives the best performance and we can see her mutual naivety slowly fading down and at the end she's as stern and cynical as her husband. I'm not even sure the couple make it for the next ten years.
That said, the film is enjoyable on a very superficial level, the costume, the design of cars, the love letter to French province and Donen's choice not to exaggerate them in order to make the decades more identifiable, so it was obvious Donen didn't want to make a gimmick-film but a true examination of a couple whose fluctuating levels of love and commitments evolve with time. I can understand why it's a personal favorite, but I feel like it's a sentimental choice, but marriage is all about sentiments.
The best thing about the film is still Hanri Mancini's magnificent score.
I'm surprised though that Ebert didn't think of mentioning the co-winner of the Golden Palm, the Italian comedy "Signore & Signori" also known as "The Birds, the Bees and the Italians". In a more upbeat comedic tone, the film explored the many hypocrisies and hidden ordeals of marriage, let's call it a less serious but no less mature version of Donen's film. Now, I guess there are many factors on which depend the way you experience "Two for the Road" and being or having been married is certainly not the least of them.
Well, let me lay the cards at once: I have been married, I divorced, I'm in a couple again, have a child with each woman, and right now, I can't tell if I'll be with the same woman in 10 years. Nothing to do with love but one can't reach 40 without understanding that nothing can be anticipated and love isn't the only variable in the equation. But on more trivial level I went through the usual arguments on the road, the embarrassing displays of dirty-linen washing even in hush-hush mode, the way one word too many can push the anger button ... and one benign last-minute conversation leads you to that big quarrel where you end up on a sofa questioning yourself: why am I inflicting this to myself?
The Oscar-nominated script was written by Frederic Raphael, from his recollection of various trips across the South of France and Italy. It has the merit to insist that marriage isn't a fairy tale, and it raises important points about why people spend lives together. Once again, love isn't enough. Sometimes marriage makes you feel like being 'hooked' and be entangled in responsibilities that make love a weapon as much as a target. And so "Two for the Road" follows the marital life of two straight shooters: Mark and Joanna Wallace in a span of twelve years that -and this should be specified- is exposed in a non-linear way without any transition apart from a few clever cuts.
That was a deliberate choice from director Stanley Donen, who, didn't want to make it a series of intertwined vignettes but a true examination of marriage at different steps. That they aren't shot like flashbacks implies that they should be considered at the present time, not as a set-up or a foreshadowing. According to Donen, the experience is better if the picture is made of temporal juxtaposition, linearity would've made it dull and banal. In fact we have to look at the present as a result of the past, which is exactly the reality of marriage; we marry for a future but linger on the past. Still, it's not always easy to follow and the back-and-forth trips provoke sometimes a certain dizziness.
The film opens with Albert Finney and Audrey Hepburn's long faces, they see an unhappy newly wed couple and she notices that they don't smile "why should they, they're getting married" dryly retorts Mark. That opening line can be misleading by insinuating this is an exercise in cynicism, in fact it's only to show that these two know each other so well they just can't kid themselves. They have come to that phase where they can stop pretending and denude their hearts from the whole romantic BS. But one can't help but feel sorry for Audrey Hepburn who was used to more benevolent partners. While Finney plays the hardened one who never changes (not even physically), Hepburn as usual knows how to internalize in delicate classiness, Donen who had worked with her in "Funny Face" and "Charade" knew her so well he couldn't have throwing dishes or going into loud tantrums. Her eyes speak a thousand words. Not that she's immune to criticism as her husband points out, "Just because you use a silencer doesn't mean you're not a sniper.", a line that could sum up my perception of the two women of my life.
And in this patchy narrative we see tensions rising and deflating from one episode to another, leaving us with the impression that these people argue because they know each other so well. That's what you call complicity. When they travel together Mark's ex-girlfriend Cathy Manchester (Eleanor Bron), her husband (William Daniels) and their insufferable daughter Ruth 'Ruthie' (Gabrielle Middleton, the stares they exchange say everything.
Still, for all its noble intentions, the jigsaw puzzle structure can be really difficult to follow: except if you have a keen eye on Audrey Hepburn's wardrobe and haircut evolution. It's obvious she gives the best performance and we can see her mutual naivety slowly fading down and at the end she's as stern and cynical as her husband. I'm not even sure the couple make it for the next ten years.
That said, the film is enjoyable on a very superficial level, the costume, the design of cars, the love letter to French province and Donen's choice not to exaggerate them in order to make the decades more identifiable, so it was obvious Donen didn't want to make a gimmick-film but a true examination of a couple whose fluctuating levels of love and commitments evolve with time. I can understand why it's a personal favorite, but I feel like it's a sentimental choice, but marriage is all about sentiments.
The best thing about the film is still Hanri Mancini's magnificent score.