One final Quick Take for January! The Five-Year Engagement is a timely January flick, as the protagonists' initial meeting and many of the seminal events in their lives revolve around New Year's Eve. It's also a perfect Quick Take, because not too much of it happens in San Francisco, even though the city is an important character in the story. Judd Apatow really cranks them out, and unfortunately, this is probably one of those he could have recycled into a better film. Sorry, dude. Starring Emily Blunt, Jason Segal, Chris Pratt, and Alison Brie. Directed by Judd Apatow, 2012.
Synopsis
Tom (Segal) and Violet (Blunt) are a charming couple who get engaged in San Francisco one year after meeting on New Year's Eve. However, as their engagement progresses, a number of obstacles prevent them from taking the trip down the aisle. When Violet is accepted into the psychology PhD program at U Michigan, Tom follows her to the midwest, reluctantly surrendering his head chef position at a rising San Francisco restaurant to his best friend, Alex (Pratt). Without any comparable culinary scene in Ann Arbor, Tom flounders and eventually settles into a humdrum existence at a local deli. Meanwhile, Violet's studies and career flourish, and she manages to wrangle another two-year position at the university. Tom's frustrations boil over and they split, with him returning to California and each of them starting new relationships. Through all of this, Violet's sister Suzie (Brie) and Alex have met, gotten pregnant, gotten married, and added a second child to their family; only adding to the frustrations felt by both Violet and Tom. Eventually, Violet and Tom cannot deny their love for each other, and decide to have a last-minute, 'multiple-choice' wedding in Alamo Square Park, where they finally, at long last, tie the knot.
Authenticity
My main beef with this movie is that it goes straight to a lazy cinematic cliché for the denouement, to hell with authenticity. I'm talking about the wedding in Alamo Square Park. We all know and love it, but goddamn is it lazy to use it. I could also take issue with the authenticity presented in having a 'multiple choice' wedding (if I knew or gave a fig about wedding stuff to begin with, that is). Most people struggle to come up with the funds for one wedding, let alone multiple options for musicians, tuxedos, and denomination of presiding party. How much more would one be set back by renting Alamo Square Park? This wedding pricing guide provided by the SF Recreation and Parks Department doesn't list Alamo Square, but between permit fees and mandatory two-hour minimums, similar locations in the city would run you anywhere from $360 (bargain) to $3,086- and that's just the base price. I guess the lesson to be learned is that Alamo Square Park is not for rent and therefore it's free to have your wedding there. I'm pretty sure you can just tell that to the park rangers who show up on your special day and it will be fine.
Similarly, I take issue with Suzie and Alex's wedding, conducted in one of the most ostentatious locations there is: in front of the lake at The Palace of Fine Arts. I was surprised to see you can rent it as a venue; however, according to the pricing guide I've linked to above, weddings are held in the rotunda and not on the lake. Plus, they can't close it to the public at that time, so you'll have rando tourists walking past your beautiful day.
One scene I did enjoy was Tom's job search upon first landing in Michigan. It's basically a montage of different restaurateurs laughing in his face when they learn he gave up a head chef position in San Francisco to move to Ann Arbor. Now, I've never been to Ann Arbor, or anywhere in Michigan for that matter, and I'm sure it's wonderful. However, San Francisco does have a well-deserved reputation as a foodie town, so I imagine any midwestern college town might find that hard to beat. One thing that's certainly implied by this scene if not outright addressed by the movie is the difficulty one can face once one gives up a 'foothold' in San Francisco. With rents ballooning out of control, leaving a rent-controlled home with the plan of coming back in just two years is essentially gambling on never being able to return at all. Luckily for Tom, he's able to work his connections upon returning to San Francisco to get a well-paying job, but not everyone can be that fortunate.
As can be expected with most San Francisco-set films, geography and physics fly right out the window the second the characters enter a motor vehicle. I'll explain more below.
Similarly, I take issue with Suzie and Alex's wedding, conducted in one of the most ostentatious locations there is: in front of the lake at The Palace of Fine Arts. I was surprised to see you can rent it as a venue; however, according to the pricing guide I've linked to above, weddings are held in the rotunda and not on the lake. Plus, they can't close it to the public at that time, so you'll have rando tourists walking past your beautiful day.
One scene I did enjoy was Tom's job search upon first landing in Michigan. It's basically a montage of different restaurateurs laughing in his face when they learn he gave up a head chef position in San Francisco to move to Ann Arbor. Now, I've never been to Ann Arbor, or anywhere in Michigan for that matter, and I'm sure it's wonderful. However, San Francisco does have a well-deserved reputation as a foodie town, so I imagine any midwestern college town might find that hard to beat. One thing that's certainly implied by this scene if not outright addressed by the movie is the difficulty one can face once one gives up a 'foothold' in San Francisco. With rents ballooning out of control, leaving a rent-controlled home with the plan of coming back in just two years is essentially gambling on never being able to return at all. Luckily for Tom, he's able to work his connections upon returning to San Francisco to get a well-paying job, but not everyone can be that fortunate.
As can be expected with most San Francisco-set films, geography and physics fly right out the window the second the characters enter a motor vehicle. I'll explain more below.
Sightseeing
The film opens with Tom and Violet driving down The Embarcadero en route to Suzie's New Year's Eve party. Tom pulls over just north of Pier 5; if you look to the left of the screen grab you can just make out the patio of Coqueta restaurant.
As mentioned, Suzie and Alex's wedding occurs at The Palace of Fine Arts in the Marina district.
When Tom opens up his taco truck, he's shown serving directly across the street from the Ferry Terminal in a small plaza nestled between the north- and southbound lanes of The Embarcdero. This is a prime location and there are no food trucks or vendors of any sort allowed here normally. There are plenty of vendors at the plaza just opposite the southbound lanes, and plenty of high-end dining within the Ferry Building itself, but on this small plaza you can usually just expect to find skateboarders and BMXers practicing tricks (are BMX bikes still a thing? Am I dating myself?).
At the end of the movie, Violet's visit to San Francisco is ending and Tom is shown driving her in the taco truck on the way to the airport. It's at this juncture that Violet decides to propose again and a trip to the airport ends up becoming a trip down the aisle. The beginning of this ride, overlaid with the dialogue "so what time is your flight again?", is at Broadway just east of Van Ness. St. Brigid's church is clearly visible in the background.
However, moments later, they're shown two block away, exiting the Broadway tunnel headed in the opposite direction, back towards Van Ness. Violet tells Tom to turn the truck at Larkin Street; when he hesitates, she grabs the wheel, making a dramatic last-minute swerve onto Larkin.
The truck pulls over almost immediately after this last-minute turn in the movie; but in reality, this next location is a full two miles southwest of the turn at Broadway and Larkin. The truck is shown on Fulton at the intersection of Buchanan, which at this exact juncture is pedestrianized. City Hall is seen clearly in the background.
And of course, the film ends at Alamo Square Park.
Summary
Plot: 5/10- A decent rumination on the nature of commitment, relationships, and compromise in the 21st century. But it's not what you might call a 'two hander'.
Authenticity: 4/10- Like Children's Fairyland, a constructed make-believe inside the real city.
Champagne: 6/10 flutes- an okay enough movie, but you might find it going by a bit faster if you've got some of the bubbly in you.
Overall: 4/10- I watched the Five-Year Engagement on the same evening I watched Wadjda, the story of a Saudi girl who wants nothing more than her own bicycle. I found the film about a 10 year-old girl with married peers growing up in a country that still executes women for witchcraft to be more uplifting. Make of that what you will.
Authenticity: 4/10- Like Children's Fairyland, a constructed make-believe inside the real city.
Champagne: 6/10 flutes- an okay enough movie, but you might find it going by a bit faster if you've got some of the bubbly in you.
Overall: 4/10- I watched the Five-Year Engagement on the same evening I watched Wadjda, the story of a Saudi girl who wants nothing more than her own bicycle. I found the film about a 10 year-old girl with married peers growing up in a country that still executes women for witchcraft to be more uplifting. Make of that what you will.
RSS Feed
