 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.34.247.128
to being the best film of the year.
And then..... SPOILER!.... it goes off the tracks by having the heroine involved in one of the current American social red-button issues with a resolution which is tidy and moral, in the worst Hollywood sense.
There is another gaping problem with the film, namely the shock that Winslet's character not only never has loved her husband but that, indeed, she thoroughly loathes and hates him. Now, there intrinsically is nothing wrong with this and it has been a dramatic staple of melodramas forl centuries. But Mendes, the director, sabotages his film by not showing either the great faults DiCaprio's character possesses to warrant this immense wifely rage or the reasons his wife keeps such explosiveness hidden for eight years (or so).
Leonardo is quite good but he has a penchant for scenery chewing: flailing around with his arms, caterwauling, and wildly gesturing and moving about to express his emotions. It almost seems he's pantomiming a silent film performance. That's too bad because, in the less emotional moments of the film he shows effortlessness, quieter intensity, and depth.
Winslet's performance is of good quality, as usual, but what can she do when the most important parts of her character are missing?
This is all a tragedy because the film seemed like it was going to be a good commentary or at least exploration on one of modern man's most important questions: are money and career really worth the sacrifices which one must make for success or should one pursue a more original, much more challenging and singular path?
Unfortunately, after careful presentation of this question, Mendes walks away from it.
Follow Ups:
Yates once said this about his central theme of the book:
"If my work has a theme, I suspect it is a simple one: that most human beings are inescapably alone, and therein lies their tragedy."
This movie for some reason reminded me of what E M Forster said in his private letters regarding his "Passage to India":
"I think that most Indians, like most English people, are shits, and I am not interested whether they sympathise with one another or not."
In conclusion, people are just lonely shits (?!)
did a fantastic job.
"The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
First, the movie starts with them having an argument after the awful play she was in.
Clearly it was something they did constantly... that they both had habitual roles while fighting (he thinks she's crazy she thinks he's a pussy). The first thing we're told about their marriage is that it's filled with tension and discontent and that those things have been going on for a while.
So, soon into the film their relationship is on the ropes. They basically pull it together (on the surface, another habit) and then she has her idea to go to Paris. She's not kidding when she says she thinks it's their one chance. He agrees, they're happy.
He reneges and by doing so he's destroyed her hope... her chance... and her desire to see him as someone with courage (that's what made her brewing rage erupt)... and she gets back at him with the most hurtful thing she can think of. I never loved you... in fact I hate you. This wasn't the SHOCK of the story or some revelation... it was part of an argument, the escalation of an argument (a long serious one that's finally come to a head).
When he admitted to the affair she wasn't going to give him the satisfaction of being hurt or desperate so she clung to the I hate you thing (and she may well have at that moment).
I'm not claiming she's an angel and he's a demon and there was no reason they couldn't "live" in the life they had... except for their density and attachment to the idea that it wasn't possible.
They were both messed up - he was emasculated and she was... I don't know what but she was a real handful - but in general she was definitely more attached to this idea of "living". He was more fearful... fearful that if they did that he'd find out that he wasn't particularly special or interesting.
Anyway... not saying the film was amazing or anything (thought I liked it very much) just that understanding the motivations for the behaviors in the film wasn't that difficult.
"The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
If you don't care about someone, you can neither love nor hate them.
Indifference is the opposite of both love and hate.
I don't think the abortion scene is anything to do with the issue of abortion amongst the religious right, isn't it in the book?
The film is taken from a book isn't it?
I thought De Caprio's character's faults were writ large throughout as he stands in for the great American male stereotype of the postwar period becoming almost irrelevant to Winslett's character whilst she represents the awakening of "consciousness" amongst American women.
The film is effectively the backdrop to the changes that have happened since the start of the 60s.
Just my take.
in projecting all sorts of meanings. That's fine, of course, but a work should be consistent and give some basis for interpretation, for discussion. Winslet's character was poorly fleshed out, showing no disenchantment or even much pique with how things must have been. DiCaprio, perhaps because of his star status, never was shown particularly to be a bad husband. Winslet never was shown, to go with your interpretation, as being indifferent to him.
But we're discussing stuff which a well-written film shows.
RE: the book. I have little knowledge of it but, because of the abortion, it does make one wonder at the timing? Like with the timing of "Defiance," I have my suspicions that producers aren't dart-throwers.
I just think Winslet's character woefully under-drawn for the momentous act she undertook.
As he both screws around and at heart rubs his wife's nose in it by telling her with the traditional "it's over so that's alright" line along with displays of violence, what would it take for him to be seen as "bad"?
Yes, I am very indulgent!
I don't think she was "under'drawn" and abortions are something many women had and still have.
The tragedy is that she is forced into doing it to herself at home alone.
That scene sucked all the air out of the cinema when I saw it. A kind of negative generation of sound from the audience.
working steadily and providing a very nice lifestyle and helping to raise two kids, yells and hits the refrigerator a few times is "violent?" Not screaming obscenities commonly (verbal abuse), not destroying the house, not slapping, pushing, or hitting her or threatening her with physical injury.... "violent," Dave? As for the affair, that didn't seem to be very important to her, did it? After all, she said she'd never cared for him, never loved him--- she just didn't care. I believed her since it didn't seem to be something she repented of saying. That's why it wasn't a very good film. That surprise was a key to the film yet there was NO warning. The abortion seemed and the result just seemed like a melodramatic manipulation. It's a peeve of mine that Hollywood (and many popular novels) aren't content to hold the mirror up to nature, they feel a need to exaggerate it, to overly dramatize it.
Now, if the wife truly was the Bohemian she was portrayed, she would have known where an abortion was available. In those days, it wasn't very hard to find a moonlighting professional, assuming you could pay. She, obviously, had the means.
"Now, if the wife truly was the Bohemian she was portrayed, she would have known where an abortion was available."
Wow. Where I grew up Bohemians knew where to find good roast duck and dumplings and what banks gave the best return on their money but I didn't know that ole Mr. Blazek knew where to find abortions too. ;)
I thought the "thing" of the film was how the "bohemian" (if you like) spark had been snubbed out leaving her numb.
To my mind you have discounted HIM screwing the woman from work, breaking his hand hitting the car, etc, and placed too much weight on something SHE blurted out in an argument.
Isn't saying the most hurtful thing EXACTLY what people do to those they love when they fight?
Whilst I would not have been surprised if she knew where to get an abortion in the city, in the suburbs it might have been different.
Edits: 01/29/09
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
