Monogamy (2010) User Reviews

What happens to Rashida Jones here?!?

[twilliams76 · 4/10 · 13 July 2011]

A small Tribeca Film Fest entry, Monogamy has a nice and respectable performance at its heart (Rashida Jones -- The Social Network, I Love You Man, "Parks and Recreation"); but the story boggles itself down with a delirious subtext of obsession that I found distracting and overly time-consuming.

The story is about a young NYC couple a few months away from their upcoming marriage -- Jones and Chris Messina (Julie & Julia, Devil, Away We Go) -- who come upon a rough spot in their relationship. A wedding photographer by day who has grown bored with the monotony and routine of it all, Theo (Messina) starts up a side job which has clients contact him to take voyeuristic photographs of them (in secret).

Theo quickly becomes obsessed with his latest client known as "Subgirl" and, well, his obsession takes over not only his life and relationship but the film as well. It became too consuming for this viewer because (at the film's beginning) Monogamy appeared to be about the couple (equally!). Unfortunately and frustratingly (for us), about thirty minutes into the film there are longs spells with NO Jones (she disappears!) ... and this hurts the film (just as it would a relationship).

The story is a decent one -- one about fidelity and devotion -- but it takes some spills with Theo's perplexed mind. While the story is realistic and the relationship at its core doesn't appear to be "acted" (well done by both Messina and Jones); I think the film took too many strolls from the narrative thread that mattered and in doing-so relegated Jones to a minor character (again ... a drastic error!).

That the film isn't consistent would be my biggest complaint of Monogamy. I liked what I saw until what I saw didn't matter (such as Jones taking the backseat in her own movie) ... and that is about a third of the film while Theo is busy being a voyeur.

That -- itself -- is kind of strange/ironic as voyeurism is "watching" and those scenes were the least-watchable ones in Monogamy. This film isn't ALWAYS pleasant and happy and that is as it should be. It is a realistic depiction of a crumbling and strained relationship that is faced with questions that those involved might not want to answer and/or face. I do know that if Rashida Jones hadn't basically been written-out of half of the film, Monogamy would have been better than it is.

not enough

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 19 July 2016]

Theo (Chris Messina) is a Brooklyn wedding photographer with girlfriend Nat (Rashida Jones). He starts a side business Gumshoot to take faux voyeuristic pictures of his clients. Nat is taken aback by his client Subgirl (Meital Dohan). He starts stalking the mysterious woman. Nat is hospitalized for a minor injury and they're planning for their wedding. It all comes to a head and he breaks up with her.

This needs more drama. The Subgirl character is almost a red-herring. The movie needs a powerful scene between her and Theo. He's not that compelling. His drama is all in his head. This could be "Blowup" but it doesn't have nearly enough of moody or style. These are interesting actors especially Rashida Jones but there isn't enough of much else.

if only the first and last third counted!

[52james · 4/10 · 18 February 2013]

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!

Waiting for the sequel to Monogomy... Deuteronomy

[rooprect · 24 February 2016]

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.

Implausible

[thrak61 · 2/10 · 29 March 2012]

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.

More like "Monotony"

[RhyanScorpioRhys · 1/10 · 1 May 2011]

This indie film walks the well-beaten path of a couple with commitment issues and features a silly plot device that allows one of them to obsess over an absolute stranger. The "twist" couldn't have been better spotted miles off if it were surrounded by road-flares.

And I'm getting a little sick of poorly written dialog in screenplays hiding behind what used to be called "cinema vérité". If you're not shooting a documentary, write dialog that either progresses the plot along or drop the stuttering, meandering "realistic" speech patterns altogether. It's boring watching actors stumble their way through scenes in which they need to communicate verbally.

On a side note, it's such a shame that Rashida Jones can't land better roles. I think there's some untapped potential there. Or maybe it's just because I think she's cute. Who knows?

Obsessions can be destructive

[Red-125 · 7/10 · 12 July 2010]

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.

A tale of subtle obsession

[jordan2240 · 7/10 · 7 February 2020]

Came across this on Hulu recently, and thought I'd give it a shot because I like Rashida Jones. Overall, I enjoyed it. It's not an in-your-face obsession tale in the realm of 'fatal attraction,' but more of a slow decent that impacts a relationship. I found myself relating to some of the dialog, and thought the main actors did well in portraying the tension that developed between them. I also enjoyed the ambiguity of the ending, much like in the film 'Once.'

great film

[moviegeek75-1 · 10/10 · 22 October 2010]

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.

Cold feet

[TheHrunting · 13 July 2011]

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/)

I see the film as a kind of cinematic "parable" of why long-term relationships usually flounder.

[indeniukaskikas · 10/10 · 14 February 2016]

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.

Why did Rashida do this movie?????

[bettycjung · 15 February 2018]

2/14/18. i watched this because I like Rashida Jones. But, even with all her star power she could not save this from cinematic mediocrity. So, Messina plays a bored photographer. Sadly, he's not the only one who's bored. And, playing a voyeuristic photog makes him even more of a snake than he was to begin watch. In the end it really makes you wonder what she ever saw in him.

A blend movie with beautiful songs

[rightwingisevil · 11 June 2011]

The guy in this movie is a guy actually good for nothing except shooting goofy photos for some goofy people. I've never thought this kinda guy could make a living and be somebody's lover or husband until I saw this movie. A guy who already set up the wedding date with this nice and talented girl (Quincy Jones Daughter, a Harvard graduate) but still got some doubt of his commitment and still got some goofy sex fantasies, fancy a slut who hired him to shoot her goofy and weird sexual behaviors and some of her unspeakable fantasies that arouse him to fall for her. This guy is such an unworthy person that disgusted me to the extreme when I watched it. The screenplay is very blend and lukewarm, using N.Y.C. as the usual background for those young people who got nothing but daydreams. Just make me wonder how long this guy's marriage could survive. The only good stuff in this movie is the beautiful songs his soon-wife-to-be sang, other than that, it's kinda hollow and pointless.

Slow and dull

[Phil_Chester · 13 March 2020]

It starts off slow and dull and then gets even slower and duller. There's some entertainment value in seeing New York City from the Brooklyn side, but that palls after a few sequences. There's so little to commend this film, and even the stars can't make it interesting enough to be worth a watch. Avoid.