Review of The Marriage Story from a Divorce Mediator

This is a subtitle for your new post

In this review I'm focusing on the role of the divorce professionals portrayed (which were horrifying) and what we can learn from Noah Baumbach’s The Marriage Story.

WARNING- spoiler alert.

The Marriage Story portrays the end of a marriage and there's a lot we can learn. It showed the pitfalls of litigation and therefore, how mediation could have resolved conflicts and saved this family a great deal of money. Baumbach explored the failure of communication and misunderstanding with outstanding depth.

The role of the mediator…

First of all, the mediator was so ineffectual. I'd never start a mediation by saying "It’s going to get very dark and difficult and I want you to have a piece of light and happiness to remember, during those dark times in this awful and difficult process." No wonder Nicole, the wife, stormed out.

People are nervous and sad, amongst other emotions, when they come to my office. I want to help them heal, breath, be reassured that they will have guidance and support so they can move forward. I want them to know we will help them figure out how to restructure their lives in a workable, fair and affordable way. We, as mediators, will stay with them till they come out the other side. 

Now for the attorneys….

I was stunned by how ineffective the divorce attorneys were at communication. Oblivious to their clients' feelings and pain, while their lives were in disarray and child’s welfare was up for grabs. 

Where did their marriage go wrong?

This marriage ended because Nicole felt Charlie's voice was so strong that she couldn’t hear her own thoughts. She didn’t know what she wanted when she was around him. Is this her husband's fault? Is this her fault? Most likely a combination of both.

Charlie bears some responsibility for failing to notice that Nicole didn’t contribute to their decision making. He was getting what he wanted and didn’t stop to think why. In a balanced relationship no one gets 100% of what they want. (Sorry to disappoint you, kids.) However, Nicole also has some responsibility for not communicating that she felt she didn’t have a voice in decisions. 

Somehow, the whole case gets whisked away to California…

Maybe Nicole did want to move to California. However, it seemed at the beginning of the film that she was going to do one job and planned to come back to New York, where she was a successful actor. Her attorney said, "We have to file suit here. Let’s set you up, enroll your child in school and make this a California case." Nicole didn't say "Yes, that’s what I want." nor did she say, "Wait, that isn't what I want." It didn’t seem to be about Nicole, it was what the attorney advised. Yet again her voice wasn't heard. Her relationship to her attorney mimicked the failed relationship with her husband.

The attorneys failed to ask important questions...

I never heard anyone say:

           “This is what litigation looks like.” 

           “This is what it might cost you.” 

           “You have to decide, do you want to move to California and take Henry away from his father and live here permanently? If yes, here's what that would look like. If we win, Henry will live with you. He'll see his father summers and school breaks, but he won’t really grow up with his dad."

           “And there’s a good chance you could lose. Your life and work is in New York, Henry's in school there, he’s lived his whole life in New York. Charlie lives and works in New York and may well be able to prove more easily to a judge that the focus of your lives are in New York.”

No one said these things to Charlie either. None of the California attorneys communicated to him his strong arguments for filing for a divorce in New York and seeking to have Henry back in there with him. Charlie's now relegated to a life where he'll spend hours each month on planes, with his work suffering, not to mention the cost, in order to be a part-time dad. 

So whose fault is it? 

Nicole seems to have no more of a voice in her divorce than she had in her marriage but neither did Charlie. To top it off, the lawyers probably each earned $100,000 in fees.

Near the end of the film, Nicole and Charlie sit down together for the first time, to try to discuss and resolve the divorce. As a mediator I was thinking great. What took them so long?

They discuss the costs of litigation. Nicole’s mother is taking out a home equity loan to pay her lawyer. Charlie's also broke. The litigation will hurt Henry’s college fund. They discuss the unpleasant invasiveness of the pending child custody evaluation. Nicole says, “Can we try to discuss this and resolve it ourselves?” However, they're unable to do so without a mediator to help them focus on the main topics such as, where they want to live long-term, what's best for Henry and their respective careers? 

Of course they're unable to stick to these important topics. They can’t resist accusations and blame, each wanting to feel more like a victim than a perpetrator. The conversation devolves into hitting below the belt, as one can only do with someone they've been this close with.

There are no winners here. 

Had they tried to have these important conversations with an effective mediator they could have been guided through that fight, avoid the viciousness. A mediator could have helped them express their hurts and fears, while focusing on the things that needed to be resolved in order to settle the case in a way that was fair to both of them and to Henry.