The problem with this picture is that there is not one likable character in the entire movie. They are all spoiled, egotistical, self-centered bores. Viewers have to have at least one character to care for—otherwise, we keep checking our watches just waiting for the end. And this is from a big James Dean fan, who grew up near his hometown of Fairmount and visited his grave many times.
shareLeslie was not spoiled, self-centered or egotistical. She was definitely the one to love and identify with. She was the quintessential lady, a role model for the ages.
Even more intriguing is that Bick and Jett were also likable, despite being very flawed.
With Bick, there was the sense that he was a good person at heart. His prejudice against Hispanics and women, and his sometimes cruel ways as a father had been taught to him by his family and the ethics of the time and place he was raised.
Jett was sympathetic early on and it was difficult to like him after he became rich. But even the older Jett deserved a measure of sympathy since he ended up a rather vicious, lonely old man. And he knows why and tells us; it was because he never had a Leslie.
"The woman a man needs. The woman a man's gotta have too."
I saw Leslie as spoiled self centered and egotiatical. She acted like she was living with savages.
shareWhat about Bob? he pops his head in the doorway and says "howdy".
sharemrballstate1 says > The problem with this picture is that there is not one likable character in the entire movie. They are all spoiled, egotistical, self-centered bores. Viewers have to have at least one character to care for—otherwise, we keep checking our watches just waiting for the end.By golly, I think you hit the nail on the head. I watched the movie for the first time yesterday and have been wondering ever since what the point of the movie was. I didn't exactly dislike the characters but I also didn't like them or care what happened to them. I wasn't invested and I think it's because the movie seemed to be presented in bits and drabs and it jumped around too much.
Some of the points you bring up would extend this movie another 2 hours.
Back then, as certain things were obviously pointed out, screenwise, something like Leslie going to the Mexican colony you could assume through the years she would go back at intervals, and check things like the quality of their living or the Dr.'s services. Movies would indicate this and it was for the movie watcher to think that.
There wouldn't have been a more advanced relationship between Jett & Leslie. Movies are FULL of 'potential' relationships, attractions that never developed. Leslie was a proper married lady and while she offered friendship, she wasn't going to cross that other line and risk the marriage. When she separated and went back East it was of her & Bick's fights & differences.
Regarding the Kids: They were rich and although their children may have been in the house, the servants looked after them more. But in that time period--20s, 30s & 40s--children listened to their parents. Parents were the authority and if you wanted to partake of that rich lifestyle, you were going to toe the line. Parents would take an ambition like Jordy Jr and just see it as a phase. 'His mind will come right, and he'll take to the ranch" was pretty much the attitude. You needed to have someone in your corner, as Leslie did for Jordy Jr., and she had to stand strong against Bick, that he wanted to become a Dr. not a Rancher.
Just a few points to your post. Sometimes people need to watch movies with THEIR time period in mind. NOT the Present one with our Present Views. For decades we had standards of living, a certain classicism, moral codes, and they were observed.
ContessaTredieci says > Some of the points you bring up would extend this movie another 2 hours. Back then, as certain things were obviously pointed out, screenwise, something like Leslie going to the Mexican colony you could assume through the years she would go back at intervals, and check things like the quality of their living or the Dr.'s services. Movies would indicate this and it was for the movie watcher to think that.I wasn't looking for every detail to be spelled out for me. In fact, I prefer movies that aren't blatant and obvious. As a viewer, I want to be challenged in some way. This movie was a challenge but not in the right way. In my opinion, the story lacked substance and cohesiveness.
Sometimes people need to watch movies with THEIR time period in mind. NOT the Present one with our Present Views. For decades we had standards of living, a certain classicism, moral codes, and they were observed.You make a good point; movies should be seen in the proper context. I agree and have said that a time or two myself but I don't think the onus is on the viewer. The context should be provided in the movie. In this case it was not. I know when the movie was made but within the movie it's unclear when the story was set.
Finally! Now I can get this confusing, heartless movie off my DVR. I guess that's all.
shareFringeFanatic314 says > Finally! Now I can get this confusing, heartless movie off my DVR. I guess that's all.LOL I know how you feel. I had it on my DVR a long time before I finally got around to watching it. After I saw it I was so disappointed in the movie the only good thing that came from the experience was I could finally delete it and free up all that space.