Two for the Road: Questions for Reflection
By On · 17 Comments
This week’s installment in the Ethical Dilemmas on Film series is the 1967 film Two for the Road. Here are some questions to get you started in your reflection:
Pay careful attention to the editing. What devices does the director use to cut between different time periods?
To what extent do Marc and Joanna’s memories dictate the editing of the film? Are Marc and Joanna still talking to each other as the movie goes along or are they having independent memories?
How does each scene have a corresponding scene?
How is the film a rewriting of the story of Adam and Eve?
Why does the film end where it does?
How do the chronology and construction of this film affect how we view each of the characters? Do the formal choices that Frederic Raphael (the screenwriter) and Stanley Donen (the director) make change our minds about the film’s ethical dimensions? That is, how do the film’s formal innovations ask us to think about adultery? Power games? Misogyny? Love triangles? Etc.
In her essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey argues that “pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness.” How does Two for the Road support or negate this theory?
I loved this movie. Absolutely loved it. I had never seen it before we watched it in class, and I found it incredibly lovely and charming. I really enjoy the male/female dynamic in Mark and Joanna’s realtionship, namely, that Joanna starts out as a take-no-shit kind of woman. I love the early scene when she avoids getting sick and invites herself along for the journey when she first meets Mark, annoying the other girl who had her eyes on him (and serendipitously falls ill, as well!)
I like the comparison to Adam and Eve, because so much of what we see in their early relationship is paradise. They are incredibly happy and in love, and even though Mark can be a jerk, you are endeared to them anyway. As time marches on, we see a distance form between the two…a distance that seems all but irreparable. The film definitely portrays Mark as the one who is hard to live with, much more so than Joanna, and I think this is done to credit Joanna’s resiliency. When she strays from Mark and considers leaving him after all he has done to her, you can’t help but be in love with the fact that she comes running back to him. Some may see this as idiotic, but I see it as a proof of her wisdom that the love she shares with Mark will prevail. Mark is not always able to see this, but I believe that Joanna can and does see it, even when she acts cold and indifferent.
That is why I love the line when Mark says, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s an indispensable woman.” Joanna is truly indispensable, and this is communicated so clearly, especially in the final scene when she pulls out Mark’s passport. This film is as charming as they come, and is an awesome love story.
The cutting and editing of Two for the Road is a fitting application to the retelling of a couple’s stories and feelings. Mark and Joanna have been married quite some time, and by starting the film off as them in the present, an experienced and weather married couple with high tensions, it is fun and exciting for the viewer to see how they got there. The constant switching back and forth between the two highlights how this historical retelling is two-sided. Both experienced the same things but from different viewpoints and states of mind. Yet, what this conversation of stories shows is how marriage converges two people’s experiences into one union. Mark and Joanna have lived two lives together as one, and although it was not always problem-free through the affairs and arguments, they have at least made it this far. That is the beauty of the composition of this film. The way in which we perceive it as the viewer speaks volumes to the underlying message beneath the flashbacks and perspective changes. In a way, we sort of go through a loop of trying to figure out who is retelling what and what is actually going on, but, again, this is part of the greatness. From what I have heard about marriage and those who have made relationships last, it’s messy. Reflecting upon what happened until the current moment is not a clear, concise sequence of events, but a bumbling mess of emotions, confusion, and moments of extreme tenderness. It is clear that neither Mark nor Joanna are the perfect spouse: Mark hardly actually listens to Joanna, and Joanna comes of as somewhat needy. Yet, it all comes together at the end of the film when they cross into Italy. Although it was not specifically stated by any of the characters, nor was it explicitly explained, something between them has lasted. Through all of the stories we witness as the viewer, these two are moving forward, starting fresh. It is the depiction of two people who were not afraid to go back and see where they have come from in order to figure out where they are going. Two for the Road illustrates this retrospective guidance to show that life is never clear or ideal, yet it is about finding someone to share it with through the rough times and the good. Mark and Joanna will continue on their journey because it never truly ceases.
The cutting and editing of Two for the Road is a fitting application to the retelling of a couple’s stories and feelings. Mark and Joanna have been married quite some time, and by starting the film off as them in the present, an experienced and weather married couple with high tensions, it is fun and exciting for the viewer to see how they got there. The constant switching back and forth between the two highlights how this historical retelling is two-sided. Both experienced the same things but from different viewpoints and states of mind. Yet, what this conversation of stories shows is how marriage converges two people’s experiences into one union. Mark and Joanna have lived two lives together as one, and although it was not always problem-free through the affairs and arguments, they have at least made it this far. That is the beauty of the composition of this film. The way in which we perceive it as the viewer speaks volumes to the underlying message beneath the flashbacks and perspective changes. In a way, we sort of go through a loop of trying to figure out who is retelling what and what is actually going on, but, again, this is part of the greatness. From what I have heard about marriage and those who have made relationships last, it’s messy. Reflecting upon what happened until the current moment is not a clear, concise sequence of events, but a bumbling mess of emotions, confusion, and moments of extreme tenderness. It is clear that neither Mark nor Joanna are the perfect spouse: Mark hardly actually listens to Joanna, and Joanna comes of as somewhat needy. Yet, it all comes together at the end of the film when they cross into Italy. Although it was not specifically stated by any of the characters, nor was it explicitly explained, something between them has lasted. Through all of the stories we witness as the viewer, these two are moving forward, starting fresh. It is the depiction of two people who were not afraid to go back and see where they have come from in order to figure out where they are going. Two for the Road illustrates this retrospective guidance to show that life is never clear or ideal, yet it is about finding someone to share it with through the rough times and the good. Mark and Joanna will continue on their journey because it never truly ceases.
Laura Mulvey’s arguments about the purpose of females in a movie is very interesting when considering the affairs of both characters. Marc’s affair, as we saw, was just a fleeting one: he met a woman in a car, saw that there was mutual attraction between them, and followed up on that. Whether it was the first and/or last time that he had a fling is irrelevant, the main point is that none of them had any major effect on his relationship with Joanna. That is to say, none of those flings brought the relationship as a whole into question. This is because the woman or women in question, the fling(s), was only there for Marc’s superficial pleasure. He had sex with an attractive woman and that was the end of it. There was no emotional attachment in these flings, furthering the idea that at least most of the women in the movie were there simply as objects to be exhibited.
Joanna’s relationship with David, on the other hand, was something completely different. Even in describing it, my immediate reaction is to call it a relationship, not a fling. This is because of Joanna’s obvious emotional attachment to David. While there is physical attachment, it goes beyond that. We see this in the length of the relationship that these two have together. It is not just a simple night spent together, never to be referred to again. Rather, it was an extended period of time in which it appeared Joanna was going to choose David over Marc. This, obviously, displays a major disruption in the relationship that Marc and Joanna have, something well beyond the flings that Marc had. This is because David is not just a passive female that Mulvey talks about. Rather, he is a man that can cause serious disruption.
The interesting thing about the dynamics mentioned above is that, in the end, Joanna chooses Marc again. The two main characters ending up with one another is not remarkable, really not in the least. The remarkable part is that it was, indeed, Joanna’s choice. She knew the pros and cons of both David and Marc; indeed she had had actual relationships with both of them. Marc even tried to convince her to come back to him, which she did not at that time. Instead, she went back to David and only after realizing that Marc was right for her did she make her choice. It was not up to Marc, the main lead, to convince her. This was something she had to decide for herself, empowering her beyond the role of all other females in the film.
In Two For the Road, the director sometimes uses cars to cut in between scenes. The current scene fades away, and refocuses on a different vehicle of theirs. The different vehicles are a big part of the movie- very telling of the place they are in their lives. Since the whole movie takes part when they are on the road, this is more than appropriate. It’s symbolic of traveling down the long, bumpy road of their marriage. The movie also changes scenes by identifying similarities between scenes in their life, such as being alone and very much in love on a beach, to being also on the beach, but this time with Joanna taking care of their daughter and Marc working on a large architecture project instead of merely enjoying the day. Overall, the scene changes focus on similar circumstances, which are in fact very different in nature.
Contrary to some of the people blogging on this movie, I enjoyed this film. I thought it was an interesting portrayal of a troubled relationship, going through ups and downs of life and traveling to different places together. They are in love, yet become unhappy. They do not want to leave each other, yet become cheating and jealous. It seems they go from very comfortable in their relationship, with Marc making many of the decisions while Joanna encourages him to change towards the life she wants, to getting what they “wanted.” This changes their relationship from being happy with what they have to becoming instead resentful, competitive, and generally disagreeing with the other’s life choices.
Also interesting in the movie is how much Joanna gains when she runs away. It seems each time Marc holds the power in the relationship Joanna changes the dynamics by running away. In the beginning, on the beach, Joanna forces Marc’s proposal by running away. Later, when she leaves him and cheats on him, she is figuratively running away. When she comes back to him and he makes a snarky comment, she runs away until he is forced to run after her, pleading her to come back. At the end of the movie, she gets out of the car and walks, a “temper tantrum” of sorts about his involvement with Maurice. He yells, “I love you!” and that’s it. He doesn’t stay to talk to Maurice, and he tells her again and again, “I love you.” It’s an interesting choice of a tool; counterintuitive, when she is running away, she is pleading for him to come chase her again. When all is said and done with their relationship; both are unhappy but cannot seem to live without the other. And, when all is said and done, they still do have love.
The film begins and ends with a wealthy Joanna and Mark sitting in a white Mercedes-Benz, waiting to cross into Italy. The significance of their disposition is despite the change in time, physical location and the development of their relationship, this couple has gone full-circle and is back to square-one. Donen uses Two For the Road as a criticism to comment on society’s refusal to embrace past traditions, based on its new definition of freedom. Post World War II and lasting well into the 60s, there was a radical social movement taking place across the globe in response to: the Cold War, the rise of Communism, and the dawn of a new nuclear age. Trends in literature, film, fashion, and even stories we hear from our parents, do not shy away from describing an obsession with self-determined liberty; a matter not derived from government, religion, or society, but only from within.
We see an introduction to trends that steer clear of institutions like that of marriage, because people interpret this act to cement their disposition and thereby suppress their liberty. Both Joanna and Mark fear the monotony of married life will make them complacent and eventually destroy their relationship. The beginning of their intimacy is marked with an expiration date, as they decide to end their romance in two weeks, when Joanna returns home with her choir group. Donen wastes no time in the movie and probes the audience to question the difference between immediate self-induced acts of destruction versus ones that will occur over a long period of time. Joanna and Mark are convinced a relationship will end with the act of marriage, so they fear it; however, there is no fear when the two discuss ahead of time and make a commitment to bring ruin on one another. We cannot escape how drench the plotline is with irony since the characters fail to recognize their solution is in fact identical to their problem, as both are intentional acts of sabotage.
Scenes move back and forth describing the couple’s history before and after marriage; within these two time frames, there is a sequential rotation of clothing, locations, people, and wealth that repeat over and over. We see that regardless of whether Joanna and Mark are married, the couple still experiences the same problems and intimacies; such that Joanna leaves and returns back to Mark during both stages of the relationship. Perhaps Donen is suggesting that a relationship experiences the same cycle as everything else in the world. We are not strangers to the experience of changing clothes, friends, jobs, and even the place we call home; however, we put relationships in a level of their own because the emotional rollercoaster is more taxing on our mental state than anything else.
One thing that I find truly remarkable about this film is in the character of the husband, if you can really call him that. Sure, he is a wild, bad-boy whose schedule is more important than being an actual, like-able person, but hey, Europe won’t watch itself. I merely found it remarkable that the Audrey Hepburn is willing to like such a disagreeable character. If the film was instead about the terrible nature of the man, and how she had better sense than that, I might have enjoyed the film.
That’s not to say that it isn’t a good film, I just didn’t find it agreeable. Not at all.
Perhaps its just that he is an abusive person, by nature, and doesn’t even try to bother with changing. Yea, that’s probably it. During the film, I un-intentionally harassed my friend who thought he was sweet.
He isn’t sweet. Hes terrible.
Throughout the whole film he is upfront about it, he doesn’t care, won’t change, and generally doesn’t give a damn about her anyway. This isn’t what we, as a society, value in a person, no matter the gender, or sex. But that isn’t what this film is about, instead, being slammed with role reversals makes us forget about the fact that he is a terrible human being, and that Audrey Hepburn always gets what she wants, even if she shouldn’t. The way the film crafts the characters gives us something entirely new (even though AH can only play strong willed women), and is refreshing, and in colour. That bits brilliant as well.
One thing that I find truly remarkable about this film is in the character of the husband, if you can really call him that. Sure, he is a wild, bad-boy whose schedule is more important than being an actual, like-able person, but hey, Europe won’t watch itself. I merely found it remarkable that the Audrey Hepburn is willing to like such a disagreeable character. If the film was instead about the terrible nature of the man, and how she had better sense than that, I might have enjoyed the film.
That’s not to say that it isn’t a good film, I just didn’t find it agreeable. Not at all.
Perhaps its just that he is an abusive person, by nature, and doesn’t even try to bother with changing. Yea, that’s probably it. During the film, I un-intentionally harassed my friend who thought he was sweet.
He isn’t sweet. Hes terrible.
Throughout the whole film he is upfront about it, he doesn’t care, won’t change, and generally doesn’t give a damn about her anyway. This isn’t what we, as a society, value in a person, no matter the gender, or sex. But that isn’t what this film is about, instead, being slammed with role reversals makes us forget about the fact that he is a terrible human being, and that Audrey Hepburn always gets what she wants, even if she shouldn’t. The way the film crafts the characters gives us something entirely new (even though AH can only play strong willed women), and is refreshing, and in colour. That bits brilliant as well.
The artful cutting between scenes transforms this film from romantic fallout to a thought provoking story of two intertwined lovers. The director utilizes action scenes to carry the transformation. For example, when the two are traveling in vehicles across country the one car moves out of the scene to reveal the couple getting into a car during a previous time in their lives. One of the stand-out scene transfers that we discussed in class stuck out in my mind was the clapping scene. The couple is lying on their favorite beach without anyone or materials and they jokingly imagine clapping to request food. As the camera focuses on their hands, the scene changes and their beach is transformed. The new scene depicts the couple barely acknowledging each other as lobsters is being served to them by very professionally pressed waiters on a crowded beach.
As the film progressed I was more frustrated with Joanna’s character than Marc’s. The scene on “their” beach when the first week they met is ending upset me because of the forced proposal that Marc offered Joanna. I do not think marriage is the solution to an argument, and the movie helps support this. Marc was very clear in his intentions before falling in love with Joanna, that he did not want to get married. I feel like she was seeing how much she could get out of him by running away at the beach. She was cunning at other points during the film as well- especially when trying to make Marc leave the
I think there was a clear correlation between the happiness and accumulation of wealth and possessions between the characters. At first the two gaily travel walking through the rain and hopping from car to car. They only have two suitcases between the two of them. As their lives continue and fortunes improve, the couple accumulates more material possessions. However, the joy they find in each other appears to decrease. By the end of the movie they are flying over the straight they once met crossing. Instead of laughing and jokingly clapping for lobster on a beach while embracing each other, Joanna claps without a smile or look at her husband as the lobster is actually served. The both have become desensitized to their relationship as their marriage progressed. This is evident at the end of the film because as they are flying it is uncertain in what state their relationship exists.
Even though “Two for the Road” jumps around frequently, it is a relatively easy film to follow. The editor gives us viewers many hints. Audrey Hepburn’s clothes and hairstyle may be the most glaring of all. During their first trip, her hair is long and pushed back by a headband. During the second, Ms. Hepburn has bangs and half of her hair pulled back. During the third trip, her hair is short with side swept bangs. For the fourth trip, Joanna has her hair cut short, and there’s a return of the headband. Lastly, for the fifth trip, Joanna has her hair in an extreme side part and side swept bangs. Another way to distinguish trips from one another is the car Marc and Joanna are driving. They begin their journey together with no car, and next have to ride in Howie’s car, and then they get their own junker. After that, the cars get nicer and nicer. The cars they drive also have a sticker on the windshield which tells the year. I personally used Audrey’s hair and the sticker to determine what was when.
The film is very obviously a rewriting of the story of Adam and Eve. When Marc and Joanna are alone together, living like vagabonds, and lacking in wealth, they have their paradise. One could say that their lack of wealth corresponds with Adam and Eve’s nakedness. But as we know, when Adam and Eve were naked, they were blissful. When Marc and Joanna were with Howie and his family, their daughter Caroline, or Maurice & Francois, they were always bitterly unhappy. Their paradise was found alone with one another. Just as Adam and Eve took the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, Marc and Joanna took the fruit from the Tree of Success, if you will. Marc was even smuggling in apples for his pregnant wife when one tumbled to the feet of his future employer/enslaver, Maurice. Marc and Joanna wanted to get out of the basement apartment. They wanted a nicer car. Marc wanted to be a successful architect. Joanna saw success as being married and having a child. When they both finally got their success, they found themselves cast out of Eden and desolate. Sure, Marc was pleased with his own success, but Joanna mourned the time spent with her husband and his attention. Joanna was also pleased with being married and being a mother, but she managed to lose Marc in the process. By finally achieving everything they’ve ever dreamed, they lost each other and thus lost paradise. It is also interesting to note that apples specifically were used in the film because apples are often assumed to be the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. What’s more, it was Joanna and Francois who lit the flame for Marc and Maurice, just as Eve led her husband Adam into sin.
The film “Two for the Road” shows how a relationship can easily become flawed and how hard it is for two people to be compatible over a long period of time. Marc and Joanna were faced with so many obstacles that pulled them apart from ever which way. The director of the movie did a very effective job of flashing to different points in their relationships, seemingly randomly but at the same time all the scenes correlated in the end, and everything got tied together.
During the movie I did not make the connection between them and Adam and Eve, but looking back I can see it now. Adam and Eve had their relationship tested by outside factors, the relationship could never be just them. For Adam and Eve the outside factor was God and for Marc and Joanna it was a variety of things, the long car ride with the annoying child, and all the other things that they ran into along the way.
Another thing to look at in this film is how many happy times Marc and Joanna had, and yet they were still generally not satisfied with each other as a spouse. How can two people seem so happy such a large portion of the time, and yet still have a general unhappiness with each other. What kind of people can sit together and never say a word to each other? That was a common question throughout the movie, and the answer was “married people.” Notice that Marc and Joanna never sat together in silence for long, they didn’t have that comfortableness that most married people had.
Although I went into the movie skeptical, Stanley Domen’s “Two for the Road” is definitely one of my favorite films we’ve seen this semester. Usually, some hidden and profound philosophical message illuminated by either Dr. Sternlieb or another student is what most influences me. Instead, in both its construction and its plot, this movie proves that subtleties can be just as important. So I’d like to share with you why the film’s overarching construction both interested and entertained me.
The film’s heavy reliance on memory contributes to its overarching impression, which makes for a very entertaining time at the movies. From the film’s beginning, different, interconnected memories are triggered by different scenes. While this creates a difficulty in distinguishing between past a present, it ironically makes the film more realistic and relatable. How often does something that we experience bring us back to a happy time in the past that is connected? And accompanying this fond nostalgia is a sense of remorse, a slight wish that we could relive that moment when we know we never can. I think that is one motif throughout the film. Jo is stuck hoping for that first taste of marriage, the initial spark of love and passion. What she does not do until the end is try to forge into the future to make new memories, rather than live those long-gone.
The reason why I particularly like this film is because you don’t need to remember the subtle intricacies to come out with its impression. The film is analogous to a quilt, stitched together with all the different times (happy and sad), experiences (good and bad), and adventures (safe and dangerous) that life has to offer. While we, as people, love to live for the thrill of it, we have to learn from the past, not be frozen in it. Even if the viewer cannot remember each aspect of the different parts of life, I think he or she emerges with a sense of empty nostalgia. And it is clear that if we live that way too, we will be left living in a lie, a recreation of which our own mind is the artist. We can work to change the future; the past will always be the past.
Ultimately, “Two for the Road” is arguably one of my favorite movies. Not only is it applicable, it is well-done, well-acted, and outright hilarious.
So. Where do I begin? I guess that I’ll just come out with it: I really disliked this movie. I know Audrey Hepburn is one of film’s greatest enterprises, and I acknowledge that, but I spent too much of this film trying to sort out what was happening when and not really following the story at all. I got to the end and thought, “What just happened?” I feel like this film needs an accompanying road map (all puns intended) just to follow the storyline. Perhaps I’m in the wrong here, but maybe this will get people talking.
Despite my opinion, I did make some observations that I do think are worth talking about. The first has to do with the little girl, Ruthie, of which I am sure my focus came from being a teacher. I found the parenting tactics that were used for raising this girl were really quite interesting and make quite a commentary about life in modern day society. This girl is basically told from day one that she can do or get whatever she wants, whenever she wants it. Obviously, this is a very problematic way to raise a child because that child will face a harsh reality check in the real world. What I found more interesting though was that, from what I can tell, this family was American. I think that this film makes a pretty strong statement about Americans as a cultural, portraying and propagating a pretty severe cultural stereotype. I think that this film depicts Americans as indulgent, impulsive, and apathetic individuals. This is a very interesting view of our society that while not entirely true in all cases for all people does have some merits.
Finally, while studying abroad in Santiago, Chile, I took a film class where my professor always had us discuss what we thought the director, writers, or whoever was in charge was trying to express with the film. This usually required us to focus on how the film ends, so that is what I will do here. In the end of the film, both of the main characters refer to each other as a “bitch” or a “bastard” and then proceed to kiss. I think that this scene exemplifies the central idea of the film: that love and hate go hand in hand. In this very scene, we can see how contrast between the two emotions play out within seconds of each other and throughout the film the main characters demonstrate this point further. I think that this brings to light the ethical dilemma of marriage or commitment to one person. If love and hate do go hand in hand, then how can anyone commit to another individual for the rest of the lives in good faith? I think that is the take-home question to consider.
The film Two for the Road is edited and constructed with great thought to who is telling the story. Joanna and Mark take turns speaking over the film, but I find it to be less of a commentary and more of a conversation. I interpret the cut to cut scenes, and each scene having a corresponding scene as banter between Joanna and Mark, each presenting their side of an argument. They are recalling on memories of being a married couple, most of which are unpleasant, but some they both remember to be fond of. The movie makes it difficult to place blame on one person or another, but suggests that their marriage was a failure due to both of them. I think Two for the Road negates Mulvey’s argument; Joanna makes it explicitly clear as she ages that she will be heard, not just looked at. Perhaps when she was younger, this applied to Joanna, but as her failed marriage began to harden her, she spoke up for herself and was feisty, contrary to the marriage of the Manchesters.
I think looking at the film’s narration as a conversation rather than commentary is an interesting perspective. I think most people would agree that every person sees the world through a different lens, so when looking at a film about a relationship between two people, I think it is useful to look at the interaction between the two with a specific focus on how each perceives the actions and words of the other. By judging their comments as a conversation between a couple whose marriage is falling apart, the most important information is often what is left out.
For example, Marc rarely gives Joanna a straightforward answer when she addresses him. He comes off as witty, probably to a fault, although the negative aspects of this behavior are not apparent until later in the movie. By concealing emotion in sarcasm and humor, Marc shuts Joanna out from a significant part of his personal character. Joanna, in turn, expresses that she feels she isn’t being listened to, and this is where the conversation gets interesting.
As viewers, we’re forced to make a decision on who is at fault for the disintegration of the marriage. Even though the answer is ambiguous, the film raises a question which causes us to evaluate both sides. We have to make ethical decisions about what is and is not acceptable in a relationship, as well as the accuracy of each character’s perception. Because there is never an objective statement of who is right and who is wrong, the film shows the conflict in a realistic way; each character views the situation from a skewed perspective, and the skews often cancel each other out almost entirely. Two for the Road comes dangerously close to being ambiguous to the point of not really saying anything, but the fact that Marc and Joanna end up back together does say something for the nature of relationships. Despite both of their shortcomings, they’re able to reconcile. Their subjective perspectives of each other cancel out in a way that makes them able to love one another. It almost seems that the film is making a more general statement about love—that it’s all about moral perspective.
In the film, “Two for the Road”, the chronology is constructed in such a way as to demonstrate the impossibility of placing blame on one member of the relationship.
The film starts with one of Johanna’s memories of Marc, the one she dubs as ‘the beginning of the end’. Accordingly, her memory does not reflect well on him. For the first part of the film, many of the memories are likely Johanna’s, because they seem to place the all of the blame on him and make him look mean towards her.
However, at some point in time, the film switches and begins to use Marc’s memories to point fingers at Johanna, showing how her ambition for a better lifestyle pushed Marc into his career and continued to put pressure on the relationship.
By the end of the film, the audience is unsure whose memory is whose, and are able to find faults on both ends of the failing relationship. The film seeks to ask its audience not to blame the failures of the relationship on any one person or any one action. Instead it shows how over time, little mistakes and decisions from both partners build up to cause the troubled marriage, and accomplishes this through the constant back and forth between time and point of view narrative style of the film. Because the audience sees how both Johanna and Marc became unhappy and how their opinions of each other changed over time, they can understand the problems of the relationship better than a normal narrative structure, where by the end of a ‘normal’ film, the beginning seems so far away, no one can remember who started which problems.