Split Decision: "A Real Pain"
Thursday, February 13, 2025 at 3:00PM Split Decision returns to TFE. In this series two of our writers face off on a movie one loves and the other doesn't. Today, Eric Blume and Cláudio Alves discuss the season's Supporting Actor frontrunner and Original Screenplay nominee, A Real Pain...
ERIC BLUME: I'm thrilled to discuss one of my very favorite movies of the year, A Real Pain, with you. I think Jesse Eisenberg made a major film with huge ideas, packed in a tight, 90-minute breezy package: something we almost *never* see nowadays. I think it's thematically rich, briskly paced, surprising, and most interesting, light and deep at the same time. Where do you stand on the picture?
CLÁUDIO ALVES: While I like A Real Pain, I wouldn't call it a major film by any metric, shape, or form…
Indeed, positive as my general feelings might be, they're also complicated and somewhat conflicted. Form means a lot to me, so I'm not a fan of what kind of cinema Eisenberg seems interested in pursuing as a director. That being said, A Real Pain is a significant improvement over his debut, When You Finish Saving the World, even as its text can be more schematic than that 2022 mess. I'll also say this for Eisenberg - he remains a great actor. Indeed, I think his performance is immensely superior to Kieran Culkin's soon-to-be Oscar-winning work, more challenging in what it asks of the audience, more interesting in what it reveals. All while trying to boost his WikiFeet rating!
ERIC: Cláudio, already such much to unpack!
I think the movie is major because it's tackling huge contemporary issues that not many other films are dealing with, and doing it in interesting ways. At the center of this film is one of the big quandaries of our time: how do we reconcile the spoiled, wonderful lives we have with the fact that we are somehow inexplicably unhappy? How can we get even the slightest whiff of pain from our historical past, and treasure it, and absorb it, and have it serve as a healer for our everyday lives...which are richer and easier than the lives lived then, yet somehow we're unable to *feel* that? How can we use that past, and the legacy of that past, to see the beauty in front of us? It's about the complexities of the present, and how beautiful it is that we have the luxury of exploring these complexities. How to create a space for and breathe through extraordinarily difficult people in our lives? How do we connect to a disconnected past? How can we actively *feel* in the present? What truly is an "authentic experience"?
A Real Pain is about a literal search, for the grandmother's home in Poland. But each character is searching, yearning, trying to connect. The characters and themes build on each other throughout the picture, and, as a bonus, things play out in tetchy and uncomfortable ways. Eisenberg directs his actors to give the scenes a livewire immediacy that keeps the film fresh and alive at all times. From a script standpoint, that group of characters who form the tour group is almost *too* perfect. Like, I have been on an international tour with essentially that *exact* group of people...that same mix of personalities, the same commonality of desperation for connection, and the same interpersonal dynamics. All of those actors score in those roles, and Eisenberg never pushes any of them too far...we see them *exactly* the right amount that we want to see them, and in the amount we should based on their contribution to the cousins' story. To me, this was extremely sophisticated storytelling for a comedy, and perhaps I bristle at any suggestion that a comedy film cannot be major.
Now come at me...!
CLÁUDIO: Where exactly did I suggest a comedy film can't be major? Do Not Expect Too Much from the End of the World is in my top three of the year, and I'd call it one of the last decade's most defining films, an epochal snapshot of the now in relation to the before that's as smart as it is riotously funny. Being a comedy has nothing to do with why I'd struggle to consider A Real Pain major.
I mentioned form initially, which has much to do with my reaction. To me, narrative isn't an essential part of cinema as an art form, but its audiovisual properties are. And on that front, Eisenberg's film is pretty and solid. It's also perfunctory and unexciting as they come. Throw a stone toward any given program of independent American cinema, and you'll hit half a dozen works like A Real Pain. I'll give him points for hiring a fantastic cinematographer in Michał Dymek (EO, The Girl with the Needle), who makes the most uninteresting compositions still sing with gorgeous light and rich texture. However, I will detract just as many points for the Chopin craze in the soundtrack. It's like someone Googled the most famous Polish composer and stopped there.
But you're focused on writing and performance in your defense and celebration, so let's go there. I can't help but notice a notion of assumed privilege in how you phrase these supposedly great questions A Real Pain posits. This feeling that we live in idyllic times feels false, too restricted to a social milieu that's far from universal. And I'll be frank with you - that's not an especially deep interrogation or one that distinguishes A Real Pain from similar texts. That doesn't mean it's poorly done, however. I'd gladly credit Eisenberg and company with storytelling elegance and succinctness - hooray for 90-minute films! I'll even credit the writer-director with conveying the feeling of insufficiency concerning the legacy behind us in a manner that feels more "authentic" than not, whatever that word might mean. There's also much beauty in his observation of behavioral dynamics within groups of quasi-strangers, the oscillations he spies between how we behave with new acquaintances and those who've known us for eons.
And yet, I can't forgive him for that smooth perfection you're so drawn to. Because it makes the characters feel like types and mechanical parts, speakers from which Eisenberg can broadcast conflicting ideas in a Woody Allen-esque spin on a Socratic dialogue. August Wilson does that a lot of this in his plays - The Piano Lesson comes to mind - and I love them dearly, but it's not too outrageous to say that the A Real Pain scribe is not at that level. The big dinner monologue is the nadir, the absolute worst example of this, as it showcases a need to verbalize the tensions the audience has already surmised, making the implicit explicit, delineating what the author is trying to say, and leaving no space for interpretation. That bores me. Moreover, it makes for bad art. The film survives only because of the strength of Eisenberg's work as an actor and the assembled supporting cast from which Jennifer Grey shines brightest.
ERIC: Where exactly did I suggest we were living in idyllic times? America is in the worst time possible. And the accusation of my "assumed privilege" is offensive, because the larger point is that the concerns of a typical American in 2024 are not as severe as the typical Pole in the 1940s. That is the point the film is making, and that I'm making. Contemporary Americans, no matter how un-idyllic the times may be, are spoiled. A mainstream comedy film which attempts to stare down the self-centered contemporary American mind may not be "especially deep" to you, but I think it's a pretty big thing to tackle for a breezy, meant-for-all-audiences movie. (I have to giggle that the comedy you chose as your example is a 2h45m Romanian film.)
To your point about the script itself, first I'd argue that I'd rather sit through A Real Pain twenty more times than endure ever one more August Wilson film adaptation, all of which so far have been clunky, leaden, heavy-handed, and pedantic, and full of scrupulous overacting. Wilson's language works onstage, where you can be transported by the theatricality of it, but on film, those scripts are dead in the water. But that's another Eric/Cláudio argument for another day! I don't disagree with you that Eisenberg's script is schematic, but I don't mind terribly for two reasons: one, I admire that he's adhering to a sort of classical screenplay structure (something writers must do to even get a script greenlit in this town)... somethihng I don't think is inherently a bad thing, and something that I think is easy to criticize as "too neat". And two, while the script itself is perhaps a bit over-orderly, Eisenberg directs the actors in a way that upends that. If I concede to you that the characters are mechanical types, which *maybe* I'm willing to do, on paper, the actors he hires to fill in the blanks do exactly that. Every single one of the characters in the supporting cast felt one hundred percent like people I have met traveling, even in the way that each of us in real life is a "type". The world of A Real Pain felt fully painted with extraordinary affection and smart detail by Eisenberg, to me.
CLÁUDIO: He's a much better director of actors than he is an image-maker or even a writer. You speak of sophistication in the screenplay, but I find very little evidence of it.
I was not calling you privileged, personally. I'm saying A Real Pain directs these questions toward an audience it assumes is living within a certain level of privilege. At the same time, I feel the mechanics of presenting those questions tend to aim for some universality that rings hollow in that context. It's a matter of balance, or imbalance, as the case may be. Fine, my Jude reference wasn't the best, and I guess mentioning other comedies I love this year won't help my case - Universal Language, The People's Joker, Hundreds of Beavers, Problemista - as they all operate on very different levels of cinematic ambition than A Real Pain. However, I also referenced Woody Allen. Though it's not very "of the times" to use him as a positive example, his films consider a very privileged strata of American urbanite society. And yet, they mostly use that specificity to their benefit, couching existential questions in the granular idiosyncrasies of their milieu. They feel coherent in their humoristic and dramatic goals, different facets never contradicting or shortchanging each other.
Furthermore, I mentioned Wilson as a writer and mainly thought of his work as existing on the page for this argument. My fault for not being specific enough. I'd also argue that the faults of those film adaptations are neither here nor there, nor do they stem from their scripts but rather their direction. That said, I note - perchance erroneously - your dislike for Wilson's writing overall, which may indicate we have such different notions of what good dramatic writing is that discussing Eisenberg's faults or merits is the path to madness. Anyway, as you say, that's an argument for another day.
With all that said, I should come forward with an important detail. As much as I admire what Eisenberg pulls from him, Culkin's performance is not all that. I suppose a big problem is that the text needs me to find some charm in Benji's antics, but I can't quite grasp it.
I like him and like his performance. I just don't think he's as impressive as the film's biggest fans and awards voters the world over paint him. His work as Benji reminds me of Old Hollywood stars who leaned on their persona to the point a performance is never a matter of transformation but variation. He's bringing all the Kieran Culkin-isms we know and love and adapting them to meet Eisenberg's script. It's a solid effort, and I think he's especially remarkable at suggesting the underlying pains beneath the loudmouth antics from early on. It's an unsurprising turn, not an ineffective one. However, I struggled to see what charmed everyone around him or even what endeared him to his cousin beyond the bonds of blood. The way scenes are staged seems to presuppose the audience's affection in ways that never quite worked for me. That's not to say he doesn't have his moments. The final pilgrimage to the grandma's old home is, by far, the film's best passage, with both Eisenberg and Culkin firing on all cylinders for that sentimental cum awkward gag with the stones and the neighbors. I loved that!
ERIC: So, I suppose it's time to discuss Kieran Culkin's performance. I think that is *is* indeed, all that.
A few quick things, though. I love August Wilson's writing, but it has never worked effectively in a film, in my opinion, where it feels overwrought and self-conscious. I've seen several Broadway productions of Wilson's plays that worked quite well. And since you bring up Woody Allen, when I first watched A Real Pain, I couldn't help to think how similar it felt to the Allen canon...to me, in a good way. I would argue a movie like Problemista, as smart as it is, is aimed at a different sort of privileged audience. I guess I'm not sure where this argument of privilege nets us out, and instead it just takes us further away from evaluating the film itself and its merits. A Real Pain ultimately examines a complex love/hate familial relationship, and that feels very universal to me.
To that point, I think the reason I feel so strongly about Kieran Culkin's performance is that I've rarely seen someone so unapologetically portray that person I know *so well* from real life: that person who is "a real pain"...who takes up so much oxygen in the room...but then who turns around and says or does the sweetest, most lovely thing that you remember why you love them. I've known several Benjis in my life, who go beyond the borders of testing your patience but then warm your heart when you least expect it (and who make it clear how much they *need* you because you understand them, and most people don't).
CLÁUDIO: I want to make something clear because I realize my words may have been muddled about the topic. It's obviously okay to create from a privileged point of view, and many of my favorite works of art stem from such perspectives. It's all about acknowledgment, about specificity, about an understanding of limitations and how to work with them. A Real Pain fails at this, to me, and there's no more considerable proof than the character of Eloge, whose presence feels mechanical to a fault. He's there to underline the universality of the conclusions the film articulates, existing as a corroboration of the leads' rarefied experience from a place where genocide isn't an abstraction of the past but a present reality. I wish the film were as generous with him as it is with Marcia, but it's not. I wish it were as curious, too. Most of the film’s curiosity is too tightly focused on the cousins to ponder effectively on anything or anyone else beyond their function as tools with which to define their familial dynamic and the universal values therein. But questions of universality will always rub me the wrong way since I firmly believe that such things should never be a conscious aim of artists but something that emerges organically from their work.
ERIC: Benji is wildly mercurial, and mercurial is a difficult thing for an actor to play, because you have to make those turns feel coherent, that they're all coming from the same person, that you're not out of control with your characterization and calibration. Culkin's work is never random, he's fully in control of this man, and he has an awareness of the toll he takes, and cannot help himself. Eisenberg packs so many details into the first few minutes of the movie (his surprise at Benji arriving early at the airport; Benji thoughtful yogurt purchase for David; Benji smuggling weed into his bag; Benji being both a spectacle and a mensch through the security line; Benji taking the window seat and forcing David to take the aisle seat)...we see these conflicting flavors right away, and Culkin helps to fill in the blanks with his trademark charm and snark.
But i understand your point about *not* being charmed by Benji and the way scenes are staged to presuppose that. That was my challenge with Anora: Sean Baker stages scenes that same way, and I was not fully charmed by Ani. So that feeling of sitting outside an experience that most people in the theater are having can always be very frustrating. But as for Benji, any man who compliments another man's feet by saying "they're graceful as fuck" has my heart.
Also how intently he listens (his reaction to the tour group's stories at the top is so deeply felt), especially considering what a selfish asshole he can be, is equally lovely to me.
And your point of "Old Hollywood stars" and variation is probably true of Culkin, but I don't think a variation is necessarily by definition less impressive than a transformation. And we don't need to say Old Hollywood, of course, there are many (often terrific) actors for whom "variation" is the thing: Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, etc. Constantly bringing interesting and colorful variations requires immense skill and talent, and that kind of acting has its own quality of joy. We may be accustomed to Culkin's insanely ace comic delivery, but we shouldn't take it for granted: he's the definition of an actor who can detonate a line, and he finds comedy in all kinds of pockets throughout the film.
Any other thoughts on your end so we can wrap up?
CLÁUDIO: Love your description of Benji and Culkin's performance. Indeed, though we seldom reach an agreement in these Split Decision debates, you've convinced me of some qualities I was reluctant or unable to acknowledge in his performance. You won't find me rejoicing about his many fraudulent wins this season, but hey, we made some progress. I should also say that I meant that Old Hollywood comparison as a compliment. It annoys me beyond belief when folks dismiss folks like Dietrich and Crawford and Garbo because they didn't demonstrate enough range. Fuck that noise.
One last thought I wanted to share is that A Real Pain flirts with some interesting questions that, in my view, it inevitably fails to pursue. And that's the commodification of Holocaust remembrance, how it has become something akin to a cottage industry, especially in the countries that house the concentration and extermination camps. Some favorite Eastern European films of recent vintage tackle this more thoroughly and have earned a lot of respect from me on that count. The same could be said of last year's The Zone of Interest whose flashforwards into our present are much more polysemic and prickly than what its naysayers insist. Nevertheless, I appreciate having a mainstream American movie gesture toward that, however faintly. Tackling such ideas head-on while maintaining a comedic appeal would have been one hell of a challenge, and I don't want to lambast Eisenberg for having foregrounded other narrative priorities and centered other questions for his movie. While I won't call A Real Pain a great or major picture, it's still a good effort in my books.
ERIC: There is nobody who argues his points better than Cláudio, and few people I enjoy arguing with more than you. It’s always a joy. And any man who says “fuck that noise” has my heart! Thanks for a fun volley!!
Previous Split Decisions:
Reader Comments (5)
That was exciting, and I'm with Cláudio on this one.
Re: Culkin
This.
Interesting to note in this context that this year, he's one of the only acting nominees whose performance is rooted more in personality than characterization: no physical transformation, no skills learned, no dialect work. Very much an "I woke up like this" performance. Which is fine, but not particularly impressive in comparison to Norton's Seeger, Strong's Cohn or Pearce's Van Buren. (Not to mention what Borisov does with silence.) Normally, I wouldn't compare, but this is a competition, after all. AND IT'S NOT A SUPPORTING ROLE...
Claudio doesn't like a recent, American-made movie?
Colour me surprised.
Wow,that was a very lively read and I must add sometimes bordering on the mean and angry,play nice next time.
I am on the fence with both of your points.
I assumed before reading Claudio would have problems with it's simplicity as a long time reader i've gleamed the type of cinema he enjoys,not too mainstream and usually intellectual and his writing reflects this,I enjoy his posts and lists though simply to learn new films i'd never seek out.
Eric's view on Wilson is much like my own,they may be absolute dymanite on stage but my god they bore the pants off me on screen,they often call for big acting which takes me out of the story with it's theatricality,the dialogue rings like dialogue and not conversation,I have not enjoyed any of them so far.
Culkin's great as a type and i'm not familiar with him Succession,I don't watch modern TV.
I didn't find a lot of depth in the role,Eisenberg I thought found a lot in looks,gestures and line readings so we never quite know at certain points how he actually feels,I would nominate him over Culkin in a heartbeat.
I do agree with Claudio that sometimes what's going on underneath the surface is often spelled out unnecessarily and it's not a great cinematic acheivement,a pleasant 90 mins but like a lot of independent comedies with good casts nothing profound.
I did like the film and felt the tour guide was probably the best of the supporting cast,the film was about those leads and we barley find out about the others.
MJC -- I take your point. My taste tends to be more international-minded than what is usually discussed during the awards season. But hey, I've liked plenty of recent American films. My top two from just last year were KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON and MAY DECEMBER.
And, this year, I've been very positive about stuff like Eggers' NOSFERATU, the trans radicalism of I SAW THE TV GLOW and THE PEOPLE'S JOKER, the irresistible fun of HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS, the much acclaimed NICKEL BOYS, Joanna Arnow's sex comedy, GOOD ONE, DAUGHTERS, JANET PLANET, the amazing PROBLEMISTA from Julio Torres, THE BRUTALIST; JUROR #2 which should have been a slam-dunk screenplay nominee, THE WILD ROBOT, MOUNTAINS, BIG BOYS, THE FIRE INSIDE and others. I watch a lot of stuff, and I think I'm not especially prejudiced against American cinema. Though, again, I guess I can see why someone might think otherwise.
Mr Ripley79 -- I don't think either Eric or I were angry while discussing A REAL PAIN. It can look that way, but we're two guys who like to argue. Hope it was an engaging and enjoyable read despite our fighting spirit.
Gentlemen,
I think you both missed the point. This is a film that examines how we fail to recognize and care for the mentally ill in our families. When David arrives at the airport, Benji admits he has been there for hours. David lets this admission go without notice. Late in the film we learn Benji was living with his now deceased grandmother. He doesn’t indicate a new residence and David fails to inquire. The film ends where it began. Benji is seated in the airport quiet and disconnected. He has nowhere to go. It takes little imagination to realize that Benji will soon join the hordes of homeless in this country without options.
I believe A Real Pain is a powerful commentary on today’s indifference to the agony held by those who lack the ability to function in this society.