SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I feel like in movies, there's this unspoken rule that all marriages with cheating must end, and all marriages must include cheating to validate them ending

I think this mirrors real life though. Many people in R keep the infidelity a secret because they don’t want to be judged for wanting to reconcile with a liar/cheater/theif. In my own decision to D spouse after Dday 2 I had full support of family and friends. Even his friends. My own son understood why I left even though he wishes the infidelity never happened. My dad who had a ONS on my mom was my biggest supporter for D.

So the unspoken rule is mostly accurate. D after cheating is a valid choice.

Not getting along? Go to counseling.

Watched it. Maybe I was expecting too much based on the reviews but I thought it was slow and boring. I thought her attitude regarding being cheated on was treated like an after thought. Like “ oh yah you also cheated”. As though it is nothing. Should the cheating have been left out? Maybe. Either way, it felt like a waste if a couple of hours that I won’t get back. Acting was good but I found it to be very bland movie. Not my type of movie. It didn’t get any triggers or emotion from me at all. I was disappointed.

Just an FYI, this movie have been nominated for several Oscar's this week including best picture, best actor, best actress and best supporting actress, best screenplay and original music for Randy Newman.

Yep I’m aware. I don’t always agree with who is nominated for Oscars.

I may have to go back and watch this one again, but I was left feeling that Scarlet's character did not react at all like someone who discovered her H had cheated on her. I could not relate to her bland reaction. It made me feel a bit ashamed of how I reacted (although I should have received an Oscar for my dramatic portrayal of the blindsided wife!). Like maybe she was showing how "more evolved" people react to the news of their partner's betrayal. I found it interesting, but couldn't really connect to the characters.

[This message edited by psychmom at 1:19 AM, January 15th (Wednesday)]

H and I started this movie more than once and couldn't get through it. We had friends who liked it and friends who thought it was so so.

I'm with you Deephurt...slow and boring. Now Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? NOT BORING!!

I agree that the marriage was in trouble before the cheating; however I think the cheating was the catalyst for the wife to leave. Both of the parties were in the same marriage; he decided to cheat. We can all agree that's wrong. The wife in this movie appears to be co-dependent. She let the husband make the decisions about pretty much everything and let it slide. In my opinion, his cheating was the final deal breaker.

Two things I found interesting in this movie:

1. Couple stopped communicating, started to lose the connection, lead to infidelity. They never seemed to stop loving each other. Seem ScarJo was resentful about the not moving to Cali, etc. Started to pull away instead of really trying to discuss/resolve with AD. AD felt distance, upset M was challenging, no sex from W, so find it elsewhere, instead of communicating. This M was probably salvagable before infidelity.

2. Lawyers F things up. Both spouses seemed OK with negotiating and settling things themselves until one went to a lawyer. Lawyer makes threats, scares the other spouse and now he hires an attorney and fees go through the roof!

I may have to go back and watch this one again, but I was left feeling that Scarlet's character did not react at all like someone who discovered her H had cheated on her

I may have to rewatch it, but I thought she was already over the marriage, emotionally disengaged. I do not think it was some kind of evolved bullshit. I think she was already done. I also think she was in pain and he was not someone sje felt she could be vulnerable with anymore.

Couple stopped communicating, started to lose the connection, lead to infidelity. They never seemed to stop loving each other. Seem ScarJo was resentful about the not moving to Cali, etc

I think it was more than that. He took her for granted, which he acknowledged

later and he was very very selfish. Tbey definitely loved each other, but she loved hom more and he knew it and didn't see it as problematic. I dont know how the marriage could be saved because the marriage worked because she fully supported him. She now needs to be fully supported on her work. Could he do that, and could she fully support him now?

I was so happy that she found fulfillment, and i don't know that she could have done that while remaining married.

I really liked it, but I like slow movies--also remember liking Noah Bumbach's earlier movie (The Squid and the Whale), but saw that a long time ago.

To me, the infidelity felt almost incidental in this. I kind of took away that the relationship was unequal at the start; she was almost starstruck. And no matter what, he was going to stay exactly who he was the day they met and she was always going to outgrow him in he end.

First, I haven't seen it, but it sounds like I would like it. For once I would like to see cheating portrayed more like reality, and the reality is that most don't live happily ever after. This would have disappointed me:

I wanted to see if the M could be saved since they called it Marriage Story.

Most aren't "saved" and instead live on in some form of f-ed up limbo forever, or so it seems on this site. Those who R truly successfully are the smallest minority, those who leave or are left by their cheater shortly after d-day are second in line, but the largest portion seem to stick around together for finances or the kids or for some other reason in some half-assed limbo for years (or forever) afterwards. That would not make good cinema at all as it would leave people shaking their heads, dismayed at the "stupidity" of all parties involved. Until you've lived in yourself, it's hard to explain to anyone why you would even try...

And I read this and realize how messed up the perception of both the legal practice and courtroom antics is mis-perceived largely by television and by people who aren't lawyers themselves:

The Banality of Evil that is the legal system and cottage industry built around divorce, created to siphon as much money as possible from a tense situation between two people. The lawyers getting along just as easily as they litigate the case in court was a nice little reminder that they're not your friend. Watching the escalation of legal bullshit was really a gut punch.

I don't practice anymore but I was a private practice litigator for a long time, and yes there are bad lawyers and good ones and a lot that fall in between...but I can tell you 1 thing for certain, clients drive about 90%+ of the endless litigation in and out of courtrooms. If you have a no nonsense client, you will proceed as such. Most of the nonsensical fighting that comes to the table ESPECIALLY in family law is driven by the parties themselves. It's one of the reasons when I started it became clear to me that I wanted no part of family law (or criminal law - for different reasons): because when shit gets really personal, and nothing is more personal than your family to most people, and then add in money, and all logic leaves the building. Movies and television don't show how many times clients call, email, and now even text their counsel, with no regard for time or personal space, and want immediate answers even when they cannot be given. When I first started as counsel I didn't bill for every email, every phone call, because I didn't want to be "that person" who does that - who appears to be sucking someone for money to answer a question they have. But after awhile, I did bill for everything, because otherwise, the questions, and the time, never ends.

When people hate each other, or come as close to it as possible, and are splitting their assets and liabilities, their children and their pets, their belongings that have lots of monetary value or merely sentimental value, the tensions are high and the desire for revenge and the irrationality oftentimes win over the reality of how much it will cost them for their attorney to "call my husband's counsel and fight for X or Y" versus the purely financial value of whatever it is their are fighting for. They ask you to fight over something and refuse to budge, and you as counsel have to spend hours and hours talking to them, opposing counsel, and then reading and writing, and appearing in court, and later on those same people, who you told earlier that this type of litigation would be very costly complain about the bill and don't want to pay. It matters not if you spent hours of your own life, nights and weekends working for them - they are pissed. Basically, it's not as simple as it seems on tv. I started billing for everything as a prohibitive measure more than anything - so my clients would think before they fired off another email at 3am, asking me something they could have included in a meeting with me or in an email that contained multiple questions. I kid you not, I had a client once who emailed me over 135 times in one week, and I had to take time out of my day where I was either working for other clients or actually living my own life to answer each and every one of them, and while some of the questions were legitimate, none were of the emergency type.

Oh, and the last thing you want is your counsel and theirs to hate each other. If you want worthless fighting that you have to pay for, and your counsel is taking things personally because of some personal beef they have with opposing counsel, you could have a bill that is higher than it should be. The best cases I've had, and the best outcomes for everyone involved, are those where I trusted opposing counsel and we got along. It went smoother, and ended up better, and cheaper for everyone in the long run. As a Judge I worked for and respected immensely once said, in litigation, the best settlements, which is what divorce is all about, is where the none of the parties feel like they were the ultimate "winner" financially, as usually that means someone got royally screwed.

Abandonedguy stated precisely what I was talking about:

[I]f I had the means to do so at the time, I would've fallen into that spite trap to some degree myself and pissed away thousands, unnecessarily.

The spite trap is a perfect way of framing what I was talking about. If you and/or your spouse lose sight of logic and reason, and run on emotions, your bill will go way way way up...but there is little the lawyers can do about it aside from do what their clients ask, so long as they don't break the law or rules of civil procedure in the process.

EDIT: I will also add that the amount of requests for free legal advice you get as an attorney is astounding. There are few professions outside of medicine where I can think of that people want to get your opinion on something for free without regard for how much time it takes for you to do so. When my phone rings late at night my WH and I used to joke that it was my "free legal advice" hotline going off.

[This message edited by ThisIsSoLonely at 9:08 AM, January 16th (Thursday)]

To echo TISL's comments.

I've worked in family law. 25+ years ago I was a paralegal on a divorce case where our client was paying my rate of $150/hr to dispute EVERYTHING. I spent many many hours trying to hammer out division of property, including probably 5-10 hours just focusing on their kitchenware. These folks had $ (or at least the husband did - he was a CEO of a large corp), so I figured they were fighting over very expensive stuff (I was very young and very broke). Ultimately, we got it worked out and I was tasked with picking up what the other party got from the kitchen - basically several brown paper bags with utensils and the like.

I had to inventory it, and was astounded. I'd be shocked if all of it put together totaled more than $100, and between me and the other side's lawyer, probably cost $1-2k in legal fees. We are talking walmart level spatulas, and bargain box plastic tupperware type "stuff" . I still shake my head when I think about it.

So- when clients go to this level about their cheap kitchen utensils, imagine what they do with custody of their children (or pets). Thankfully, that couple did not have kids.

EVERYTHING that TISL said about doing divorce work is correct. Even as a paralegal, clients would call at all hours with all kinds of issues and questions. And the lawyers that DON'T get along is waayyy more expensive and difficult and frustrating. An attorney who is a shark/jackass in the courtroom will get a reputation which can harm their client (and increase costs), but folks in high conflict D, fueled by all their pain-grown anger, always want "the best" or "the shark", which makes it far more likely the case will drag out and cost wayy wayy wayy more $.

Funny, I always talked about those cases and all the vitriol by saying it was understandable, because there is something emotionally "primal" about our marriages and children. Maybe that's why being a BS is so incredibly devastating.

As to the film, I thought it was OK. Not amazing, and not awful. Good acting. And the fight scene was almost too realistic. Did not find it very triggering. I agree with deephurt that it was slow (took me a few tries to finish w/o falling asleep) and I wholeheartedly agree that the wife's response to the husband's A was not anything close to reality. Even if it was kind of an "afterthought" in a clearly dead M that the BS had already detached from, my suspicion is that most BS would react with at least some level of emotion over that particular aspect of things. Maybe not - I can't remember seeing anyone here on SI who had already decided to D, then learned of an A, and was not blindsided and hurt/angry by it (then again, I doubt if those folks exist they would come to SI). Personally, it would have been just fine if there had been zero infidelity in the film - I don't think it added much of anything (and while the first part of the film may have cast the wife in a dark light, my opinions changed once she talked about losing herself and her identity - I don't think the cheating and her bland response really boosted her "likeability"

Merrit Weaver was, as usual, fantastic IMO (I just love her).

[This message edited by gmc94 at 11:43 PM, January 15th, 2020 (Wednesday)]

I find both characters intolerable in this movie. Normally every ounce of me wants to side with the WS, I call it a draw in awful behavior.

I thought they were both brats. I really didn't like it at all.

I agree with nutmegkitty. I thought that they both had issues and both came across as selfish. Which is why I thought that if they had communicated better, they might have had a different outcome.

I find it interesting that people who have watched the same film have so many different ideas on why the M failed, what went wrong, who was to blame, etc. It definitely makes for interesting conversation. I think it's very hard for any of us not to be influenced by our experiences, and we "assign blame" based on that.

I agree with Nutmegkitty too. The affair was the least of their problems.

He was a director, and a such he was used to controlling everyone around him. He brought the same dynamic into the marriage, and was resentful if she didn't take his direction 24/7.

She on the other hand, got what she paid for. She was fine with having him mold her into a leading lady in demand, as long as it served her purposes. Then when it didn't anymore her attitude was "How dare you keep me in New York!" She must have forgotten she went there voluntarily, and ended up with a very good career as a result.

This was a study of two monumental egos. And a perfect illustration of how children become collateral damage in divorce.

The affair and the evil lawyers were just a distraction in my opinion. I think you needed the affair to make the legal battle more interesting.

The movie left me deflated. The infidelity part was dealt with poorly. Like it was just an aside issue.

Having said that, any movie with Scarlett Johansson in it is always AMAZING. Disappointing they made her wear ugly clothes. She’s a very sexy female.

I watch this movie solely because of the actor