The Squid and the Whale is a film by Noah Baumbach about his childhood in New York in the 1980s. It details the circumstances of his parents divorce, and although names have been altered, Noah is represented by the elder son Walt and his father, the brilliant academic Jonathan Baumbach, is played by Jeff Daniels as 'Bernard'.<br /><br />It is a complex film and not every viewer will understand it at first. At a superficial level it has been (simplistically) interpreted as a light-hearted and affectionate comedy about a husband and wife whose marital difficulties are having a negative impact upon their children. However, if we read between the lines there is a more stimulating story at work. Allow me to elucidate.<br /><br />SOME SPOILERS TO FOLLOW (IMDB requires that I draw attention to these spoilers to provide readers with a choice but I should point out that I consider them imperative to a proper understanding of the film, although they may be read equally well after one's first viewing)<br /><br />At the commencement of the film Bernard is a successful academic and writer but one whose work has been overlooked in recent years. We discover that his agent is not up to the task and that he is looking for a new one to ensure that his work receives its dues in the literary community. Incidentally, this is quite typical of the publishing industry, who tend to neglect denser, more intelligent writers in favour of those who sell well, like Dan Brown. Later in the film we learn that his wife (played by Laura Linney) has been published in the New Yorker and subsequently shall have her first novel published. This is significant because we learn that Bernard has taught her to write and there is even a scene early in the film in which he corrects a poor ending that she has attempted.<br /><br />Furthermore, we learn as the film progresses that the reason for the breakup of the marriage is that Bernard's wife has been sleeping around with a lot of other men. It is never explicitly stated but we can probably assume that she slept with a publisher and perhaps somebody at the New Yorker and this accounts for her literary success. This is setting is crucial for a proper understanding of the film.<br /><br />In essence we can say that the film deals with the existential crisis that Bernard is experiencing. He tries, in the best faith, to pass his polymathic intellect onto his two sons but is undermined in this endeavour by his wife. Later in the film his younger son Frank is persuaded by his mother's emotional blackmail to stay with her when he should be with Bernard.<br /><br />Meanwhile Bernard's eldest son Walt (read Noah) is distracted in his pursuit of wisdom by a girl at his school who we quickly discover to be frivolous. This girlfriend, in conjunction with Frank's tennis coach who later becomes Bernard's wife's lover, symbolize the frivolities of the trivial people who get in the way of Bernard's attempts at existential resolution. The tennis coach's constant deployment of the suffix 'my brother' at the end of each of his sentences indicates his lack of linguistic sophistication and thus, we can infer, sophistication of thought.<br /><br />There is a further intrigue involving one of Bernard's students, a talented young writer named Lili. The relationship between Bernard and Lili can be understood as an archetype of the Platonic form of love. Thus, when the sexual relationship between Bernard and Lili is revealed and used by Bernard's wife to justify her own infidelities, the astute viewer is able to discern the important distinction between the two. In Bernard's case the sexual element is merely an inevitable elaboration upon the essentially philosophical nature of the bond with his student.(cf. Plato's Symposium). In the case of his wife, her promiscuity and loose morals can be seen as an indicator of her inherent superficiality. It is clear that she has rejected Bernard's corrective influence and given herself up to an essentially usurious existence. <br /><br />There are parallels to Bernard's predicament across the canon of western literature. Examples can be found in Kafka (who is mentioned in the film), Goethe, Marquez, Gaddis, Dostoevsky, Cervantes and Nietzsche among many others, of the classic heroic type Bernard represents. A man shunned and misunderstood by an indifferent world which is concerned chiefly with the superficial, the corporeal manifestations of existence. In this context the film can be correctly understood as the emancipation of Bernard, redemption finally occurring in his declaration of freedom from the confines of his married life. Bernard's wife is thus understood as the principal antagonist, whilst the aforementioned frivolous characters, the tennis coach and the son's girlfriend, represent the uncaring and self-deluded universe in which Bernard is fated to exist. Meanwhile his two sons are the innocents, in whom certain of Bernard's traits are already visible but both of whom are in danger of corruption. In the denouement, we are unclear as to the precise exposition of this element but such ambiguity is an essential part of the postmodernist paradigm within which the film occurs.<br /><br />It is this that leads me to award the film 9/10. It would be churlish to award anything higher to a narrative that addresses its subject in such an oblique manner. It denies the fundamental aim of all art which is to educate the masses. However, it is paradoxically precisely this element which affords the film merit. It is designed with great precision to be apprehended only by the intellectual elite with whom the film deals. It cannot properly be labelled elitist as it also provides the lesser audience with the requisite comedy and dramatic tension. However the discerning viewer will be rewarded appropriately; commensurate with the perspicacity one brings to the film theatre.