One would think it was yet another romance movie about a couple going through a rough patch in their relationship with hopes of surviving it and coming out of it as better people, and if one was to base from its premise alone, that seemed to be what’s going on. Let me give you a heads up, though: this is not your run-of-the-mill romance movie.
The two leads are husband and wife Ethan (played by Mark Duplass) and Sophie (played by Elizabeth Moss). Ethan belongs to one of the many husband stereotypes—dense and smart, consistent and content but seemingly without a goal in life. Sophie, on the other hand, is the wife who is always after greener pastures in a sense that she wants to have something different but also has strong tendencies to be idealistic and very nagging. Stagnancy, in Sophie’s case, is the very enemy of progress and improvement, and only wants to overcome that. The movie shows how these are two characters that the people can relate to; with flaws that don’t necessarily make them bad people.
But, one question is, how far can you go until you stop and settle in contentment? Or do you even?
In this movie, the couple attempts to keep the relationship, goes to an apparently shady marriage counselor (played by Ted Danson) who, in turn, suggests that they get away to a secluded estate to which the couple agrees after the counselor concludes that there is a very large rift between the two.
The estate, a seemingly perfect haven to spend a vacation, with its huge garden, spacious guest house, a swimming pool, and then the main house, and probably even more amenities that wasn’t shown in the film. These physical attributes, at one glance, further validates what the therapist said about renews its inhabitants and their relationships.
Little did I know that that meant something else.
On the first day, the couple tries to settle in and explore the place. They smoke marijuana, and Sophie finds Ethan in the guest house, and then has sexual intercourse with him. Afterwards, she goes back to the main house and sees Ethan sleeping, who denies having sex with her. The conversation leads to their first fight during the vacation and Ethan decides to move to the cottage to resume his sleep. After some time, Sophie joins him and the two make up.
By the morning of the following day, the film remains its focus on the husband.. He immediately gathers that it’s rather odd that Sophie is cooking him bacon for breakfast despite her clear version towards him eating it. His suspicion grows even more when he returns to the main house and Sophie denies reconciling with him.
Then, right in the middle of the movie, goes the tasteful twist: the couple has two doppelgangers who live inside the guesthouse. The doppelganger Ethan or Ethan 2 does not wear glasses and works out, much to Sophie 1’s interest, unlike the original Ethan or Ethan 1. The original Sophie or Sophie 1 wears very casual and laidback attire while her doppelganger has a more ‘feminine’ sense of style, with her frilly and flowy clothes. The original couple agrees that each can spend time with their partner’s ideal version as a way to maximize their stay and enjoy the vacation even more and they also agree to some ground rules.
Eventually, things take a turn for the worse as each deal with their personal struggles, with Sophie 1 finding herself drawn to Ethan 2 and Ethan 1 slowly losing his wife. It is shown later on in the movie that these imposters were also a couple like Ethan and Sophie but got stuck in the guesthouse, have undergone a bizarre (and, might I add, insufficiently explained) process to assume the identity of the next couple. It is also explained that the doppelgangers may only get out from there after another couple takes their place.
My take away here is that the film’s objective was not to surprise its viewers with the said twist, but to instead make them think about their ideals and how the ‘sparks’ just would not always be there; would one still try to work it out? The movie shows how our ideals can also entrap us when Sophie 1 unconsciously chooses the imposter, and needless to say, gave up on mending her marital problems with her real husband.
This movie had its hits and misses; it still had plot holes, but what I really liked about it is how it displayed the vital role that communication plays in a relationship, be it with a romantic partner or a mere acquaintance. The beginning of the movie established Sophie as the upfront kind which is why it is disappointing to see the original Sophie open up to the doppelganger about her feelings on Ethan 1’s infidelity in the past instead of talking it out with her husband to make things work, as originally planned. The original Sophie has failed even more because she was the one who voiced out that she wanted to save the relationship, yet ended up falling for the impostor.
But has she really failed? Ethan’s attitude and actions also have to be taken into consideration. Was he accommodating enough for Sophie to warm up? As mentioned earlier, Ethan depicts the ‘go with the flow’ personality, and I consider this one more reason why Sophie stopped feeling comfortable around with him. It’s so easy for Ethan to say that he loves the mess that they are as people, when he’s never done anything to make amends for cheating on Sophie some time ago. Sophie may interpret his responses and attitude as very passive, and this also gives off the vibe that Ethan just doesn’t care anymore and he’s just in it for the long haul because a divorce is too drastic a change. Words only mean a lot when it has actions to back them up.
Also, having been together for a time, the familiarity between them does not completely help either, especially in Sophie’s case. The same familiarity and consistency from Ethan have led him to become complacent and lax about their marriage.
As for the ending, going back to what the marriage counselor told Sophie and Ethan, everyone who comes from that vacation house gets out, ‘renewed’, and that’s how I see it, that it was the doppelganger that Ethan took home with him, a ‘renewed’ Sophie. Apart from the obvious clue in the conversation between the two leads towards the ending about what to have for breakfast, the unsettling smile that Sophie gave Ethan when he had to choose which Sophie was the real one and the doppelganger, is not something that the original Sophie would do from my way of understanding. The real Sophie would have yelled at Ethan 1, telling him that they have to hurry up and leave, which she didn’t do.
On Sophie 1’s part, there are a lot of possible factors why she decided to stay. One reason could be her struggle to accept the fact that she has also emotionally cheated on Ethan. Another reason, and one I strongly believe in than most, is that she has completely given up on the original Ethan from the moment she received reassurance from the impostor Ethan. Sophie 1 clings onto this perfect version of Ethan without questioning what this complete stranger’s possible motives are. It is not impossible that Ethan 2 was only being nice to her because he sees her as his only way out of the state. She is trapped in the idea of a picture perfect vacation house, with a husband whom she believes should yield to her and think that she is always right—the best way to portray how humans would rather live in their past, their what-ifs and what-could-have-beens.
It is a running satire of how human beings believe that one’s consistency is considered cemented upon marriage. The idea of monogamy keeps people together more than the reality of commitment despite numerous changes in personality and behavior within the years of the relationship. It is a charming idea but a dangerous one to uphold.
A relationship therefore, is both a commitment and a haven for one’s need for independence.
The movie further emphasizes that the dynamics of human relationships is a relevant study as it sheds a brighter light to understand human nature in all its forms, the choices they make and the consequences of people’s actions in given circumstances, and such.
Still, many questions remain: How can one simply conclude if one’s actions are correct or incorrect? And on what grounds? It is evident that the world isn’t relegated to just black and white. Things can be right or wrong depending on one’s standpoint— logical, moral, spiritual, social, and so on.
“Meaning is lost in translation,” I quote, and true enough, how people interpret films depends on what they can grasp; some may even reject it outright.