Monogamy (2010)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I have no idea what my title means. But it was either that or attempt a lame pun about the Japanese art of paper folding."Monogamy" is a slow, stylish pseudo thriller about infidelity. But before you race into this expecting something racy like "Fatal Attraction", cool your jets, have a cup of General Foods International coffee and cuddle with your cat on the couch because it's more of that kind of movie. What I mean is that there aren't any erotic elevator sex scenes or boiling bunnies here; instead it's more of a deep, probing psychological exposé of a less-than-enthusiastic couple as they approach their wedding day. But it's told through an interesting story.The story is about a photographer, "Theo" (Chris Messina), who is engaged to a musician "Nat" (Rashida Jones). Just as the sparks in their relationship are dying down, Theo takes on an assignment to candidly photograph the mysterious "Subgirl" (Meital Dohan) without her knowing. Thus, the stage of voyeurism is set, and when Subgirl starts doing naughty things, Theo begins to get obsessed.Theo is not obsessed with desire, but rather he's obsessed with the notion that Subgirl and her liaison are engaging in extramarital affairs. And this begins to eat him up, causing him to be both jealous and secretive toward his fiancée Nat. As his obsession grows creepier, so the fiber of their relationship gets strained, and we begin to witness the downside of marriage before it has even occurred.It may be useful to note that the writer/director of this film, Dana Adam Shapiro, in 2012 wrote the book "You can be right, or you can be married". I haven't read it, but we can guess from the title that it's not exactly a celebration of wedded bliss. It's a series of interviews with divorced couples, touching on the problems that led to their splits."Monogamy" fits in line with that description, and although it's listed by IMDb as a romance, it's hardly that. It might be worthy of note to mention that Dana Adam Shapiro has never been married, and neither have I. So I was able to enjoy this somewhat cynical portrayal of (impending) marriage objectively. If you are currently married... well, for starters do NOT watch this movie with your spouse unless you want a truly awkward evening. You might actually be more comfortable watching "Fatal Attraction" and reassuring each other that nobody's bunny will be boiled. "Monogamy", on the other hand, has a way of getting under your skin and making you wonder if there is such thing as everlasting fidelity.The cinematic style is very artistic, making use of striking images, dramatic lighting and hand held camera work that keeps you in the "reality" zone. The darkness of the film lends itself to a menacing quality that makes you feel uncomfortable about everything. I would compare the style to the excellent films of Jay Anania & James Franco (Shadows & Lies, The Letter) as well as maybe Stephen Soderbergh (Sex Lies & Videotape, Magic Mike), particularly in regard to "real world" dialogue that seems improvised due to the natural delivery of the actors. This is definitely not a glossy Hollywood romance, so check it out if you're looking for something different.If you have a short attention span, "Monogamy" may border on monotony. But hey, it's better than a boring night playing Monopoly. Or getting a lobotomy. OK I can stop now.

I enjoyed the beginning and very end of this film, but in the middle where the engaged photographer gets lost while his fiancée is in the hospital I really felt like quitting. If you can endure him getting a ukulele in the gift shop, you've got way more grit than I. And his inability to come up with even one good line to explain why his beautiful girl should stay with him? Aw, come on! How can he be that stupid?! I just couldn't believe anyone could be so entirely clueless as our hero in the aimless witless wandering inner 30 minutes of this film. Maybe if you've got a fast-forward that could allow you to watch the loser less closely—as you'd speed-read or skim through some scenes you can't enjoy in an otherwise good book—then you could rate this much higher than I can for the way it sags in its excruciatingly dimwitted longueurs. I know theoretically I shouldn't hold it against the film itself that its hero is such a sap; but he's such an incredibly stupid jerk for such a while, I just can't forgive the movie for making me share his bad company!

I saw this film at Tribeca and it really stayed with me. I was pleased it won BEST NY NARRATIVE - it was by far the best film at the festival. The concept of man being faithful has obviously been explored in film, but this is a fresh and very well told story. The acting is superb, both performances from Messina and Jones feel so real and true. While watching the film you truly feel like you are in this couple's apartment and lives, watching them struggle and deteriorate. Shapiro does a beautiful job giving the movie breath, letting us feel the reality of the situations. The cinematography is also beautiful - again real New York, not the one of shiny romantic comedies. it's definitely worth seeing when it gets released next year.

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.