Rewatch: (500) Days of Summer


This is the third entry in what has so far been a monthly series of rewatching old movies and judging them comparitively against my first reactions and how they have grown into pieces of wider culture. So far the series has included High School Musical and The Matrix click here to find them.

This movie came out in 2009–the height of my personal Zooey Deschanel fandom. Deschanel had adored our hearts (but mostly mine) in the Will Ferrell Christmas classic Elf and I had tracked her career ever since. I had watched her in David Gordon Green’s neo-realism relationship drama All the Real Girls and paid particular attention to the McConaughey/Jessica Parker relationship drama Failure to Launch where she plays the rom-com best friend role. After 2009 her career soared as my affections waned–her unique voice grew tiresome with each subsequent She & Him album and then The New Girl appeared. The New Girl took Deschanel’s charms and pushed them to 11 in an absolute quirk-fest that SNL found they could mine for comedy. Likewise, (500) Days of Summer, while largely critically acclaimed, was criticized for being an overly quirky take on the romantic comedy. It throws in a lot of extra touches, for some elevating it to a clever film about romance–for others perhaps a grating annoyance. On a rewatch would Deschanel’s performance be akin to The New Girl or would I find the charm that adored my 13 year old heart?

More on Deschanel to come, but we must also talk about the way I adored this movie upon first watch. I saw it in theaters after anticipating it for quite a while and that year I believe I had it at number two on my best films of the year list, just ahead of Inglorious Basterds and just behind Up. I have watched it several times since then and it has always held up for me, but I feel as if critically it increasingly gets derided for breaking Deschanel into the mainstream in a way most people did not want. This time I intended to be extra critical of the film, trying to find faults in it that I may have glanced over in the past.

The film uses unique editing to showcase this relationship–one that it very intentionally states is trying to subvert the standard portrayal of romance in film. Its use of whimsy can either be taken as clever or as off-putting. People often grow tired of stories of hip, white, city-dwelling kids and their “troubles”. I certainly understand why this would be the case for some–even its pop cultural awareness can grow tiring if one doesn’t believe that the film stands apart from its references. But I do believe that it comes together to make something grander than cute editing tricks and references to The Graduate and The Smiths. Sure it’s a very specific tale of modern romance, but the film leaves itself open to interpretation–like a great work of art would–allowing room for debate and inviting viewers to feel different things about it depending on their own experience.

It opens with two introductions, interplaying the stories of our two protagonists, Summer and Tom, and sharing their two viewpoints on love bound to intertwine in this messy relationship that will soon total 500 days. Though the story is told very specifically through Joseph Gordon Levitt’s Tom, the opening shots include photos of both characters’ childhoods. Both of their back stories matter as both will come together to form this complicated relationship that is about to unveil. And the film lets you know just how diametrically opposed these two are–essentially concluding that there is a duality of perspectives: true love is a fated thing or it doesn’t exist at all.

This is where I think the film speaks profoundly; in life this debate truly exists and I have wholeheartedly come down on both sides of it. I once believed that love was a destined thing, chasing after the “one”, and knowing that two people were especially bound to one another. I’ve also believed that there is no fate like love, people are only tied together by their own choice. The film plays off of this tension and depending on your beliefs you tend to root for one character over the other.

When I first watched it I was on Summer’s side and thought Tom to be near-laughable. I was shocked to hear the reactions of others as they saw her as a manipulative heart breaker. Since then I’ve bridled my pro-Summer stance, noticing how broken of a character she is while still somewhat siding with her beginning views on life.

What I find so brilliant about all of this is that the film never takes either character’s side. In fact, it smartly switches each character’s position on the love debate and when Summer and Tom meet for that final conversation, each tells the other that they were the ones who were right. And both characters were right to an extent, each needed to gain the perspective of the other to come out as a whole person ready to take on the commitment of love. Summer needed to understand that long-term relationships were possible, while Tom needed to learn that “just because she likes the same bizzaro crap you do doesn’t mean she’s your soul mate.” The film works as a mirror, one that reflects back to you your beliefs on love, constantly shifting as you yourself mature, but is always able to provide something insightful.


Beyond this I do believe the film is really capable of showing the ups and downs of a relationship (though probably from a particularly male perspective). Director Marc Webb and screenwriting duo Scott Eric Neustadter and Michael H. Weber really do work together here to create something unique. It expresses those relationship beats wonderfully. The back to back IKEA scenes showing the desperate attempt to spark romance by recreating something that worked early on. The song and dance that comes after Tom and Summer sleep together for the first time. How Tom analyzes each and every moment leading up to their first kiss. The parallel descriptions of Summer’s attributes. And finally, the expectations vs. reality dual scene where Tom thinks he can get Summer back. These are all wonderfully rendered scenes that truly express what it is like to be in a relationship on par with just about any other movie I’ve seen.

There are parts of this movie that don’t work, but even at my most critical I cannot truly be bothered by them. The jump around nature of the film isn’t necessary, but does serve the story fairly well. The documentary interviews that randomly show up should probably be cut from the film. The scenes with the sister (played by a young Chloe Grace Moretz) are the most irksome of anything in the film, but they really are minimally used and don’t drag it down by any means.

That brings us back to Deschanel. She is definitely at her most Deschanel here, but it’s in a way that serves her character–the manic pixie dream girl that breaks a heart instead of mending it. She is the girl that the type like Tom will infatuate over, but proves that she is something more than someone to serve his story. Her wants and desires are expressed and when they don’t line up with his she is given the agency to go her own way (even if this does, unfortunately, take place off screen). Before New Girl took her quirks and amplified them, 500 used them to subvert the modern indie romance and ultimately made a pretty perfect film.

Rating: 5/5

At the Light

I hadn’t thought of God all day, but then a spark–a glimpse. Eyes closed, headphones in. The Fun Home soundtrack inspires thoughts of You.

There’s a moment I’m forgetting
Where you tell me you see me.

Say something!
Talk to me!
Say something!
At the light,
At the light.

It’s our pain, not our sin that inspires the greatest art, but oh how often the two intertwine. Our pains, our feelings, our guilts. The relentlessly unforgiving stomp on the hearts of the broken.

A lyric has always stuck with me, transcending its convention as a song.

The love of God is stronger than the power of death

Don’t let the darkness overwhelm the rigidity we have in place.

Grace speaks so loud, prayers make way for you.

Valentine’s Day (2010)

Valentine’s Day is 2010’s mish mash of pop culture stars, focusing on the happenings of the most commercialized romantic day of the year: Valentine’s Day. The film’s narrative shifts constantly, covering everything from an engaged couple to a football star to two people’s interactions on an airplane all on the day that commemorates all things lovely. Nearly each character’s story is somehow intertwined giving us the feel that Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel, 21 Grams) often likes to torture us with, only this time all the cross editing is used to bring us a romantic comedy. This technique is not really necessary and it feels like director Gary Marshall uses it as a gimmick to bring all these stars together more than anything.

The idea of throwing in so many characters and plotlines is something that both helps and hurts the film. The film never really fully allows any of its (many) storylines to develop. In a way this is a breath of fresh air, because if a full hour and a half was spent with these characters (as in a normal rom-com) the plot would be stretched so thin that it would make for a terrible movie. Leaving us with character arcs that only last for about ten minutes prevents us from seeing just how shallowly written these characters are. It never really gives us enough time to hate it, because the story is constantly changing. On the other hand, there is never enough time to truly invest ourselves into the characters like any great film allows us to do, so if Valentine’s Day ever hoped to be something great, it would have no chance to; but, I don’t believe this is what Marshall and company were striving for.

I do not really want to critique the film when it comes to its message or what it tries to push across morally, but I feel I can’t fully write about it unless I mention something. It seems to push an agenda where love and sex and relationships are easy. Where falling in and out of love can happen in an instant and broken hearts heal in a matter of minutes. This is showcased when nearly every conflict in the film comes to a happy ending and all is good and well. There have been very few films that I have ever seen where we see an honest relationship that portrays both the good and bad over a long term period. Last year we had Blue Valentine and Everyone Else which both wonderfully showed the ending of relationships, but neither showed the success and beauty that is possible when using love to work through trials. You can watch any rom-com and see portrayals of relationship success overcoming the shallowest of conflicts, but nothing that really hits too deep. Valentine’s Day is one that though it shows such a huge variety of relationships, none of them hit a deeper chord (except for maybe the older couple). It never, other than a few comments, makes a statement about Valentine’s Day, and seems to use its star power just to sell tickets but overall, it’s not a bad watch.

Rating: 2.5/5