First of all, I should like to thank everyone in this thread for the courteous quality of their posts. It is more than refreshing to encounter this, a thread full of true film-lovers who are not here to be rude to each other. Bravo!
All I want to add to the discussion, is a reminder that this is, in essence, a French film; it is based on a novel by Francoise Sagan, the famous authoress of "Bonjour tristesse", which means "Hello, sadness". It appears to have been a joint French-USA production, but the theme, and the feeling of it, are very French. When it comes to love, and what can happen and is apt to happen with it, we get a French point of view in this film, and more specifically, a Francoise Sagan point of view.
In a French film about love, there may be a "happy" or an "unhappy" ending, but there will usually be a lot of insight, either way, into our human foibles and their effects on our search for love. They are like fables, in a way, containing lessons about mistakes we are apt to make. One film that had a happy ending was "Cousin, cousine" (1975), and one very famous and great film classic is "Les Enfants du paradis" (1946), which ends with two who loved but lost each other, separated by the crowd, which makes visual the sense of loss, beautifully. In that film, the female lead tells the male lead "love is simple", but he is not able to grasp that soon enough, and they both end up with others. By the very end of the film, the male has realized the truth of his beloved's words, but it is simply too late. The film ends with an emotion that is analogous to the punctuation of three dots...
People often study that which is central to their lives, endlessly, exploring the nuances of it. Another great film from France is "Le Diable au corps", "The Devil in the Flesh" (1949), which is about love between a married woman whose husband is away at war, and a very young man. In that one, the woman observes that he is such a man, in bed, but can be so like a boy when they are not making love.
I think that none of these films were composed just to make the audience feel good; I think, rather, that they were constructed to make us think, to make us wonder about life, and to help us face it. I think these films are like the famous French saying, "C'est la vie", "That's life".
And I have gone on far too long lol. I apologize, but I suppose it is clear that I love these films.
Ah, I forgot. The question was, did she love Philip? I think she loved them both, just differently. She obeyed the mores of her time, choosing what she considered the safer love, the love of which her society would not disapprove. Each man had something she wanted; largely because of her age, she did not have faith that she would find a new lover who had both qualities, so she chose to bear the ills that seemed more known to her, rather than "fly to others" that were unknown.
reply
share
LetItBe117
15 years ago
Hi :) I'm the original poster and I just wanted to thank every one for their well though responses!
The Dark Knight= 10/10
reply
share
leggycat-1
15 years ago
excellent response ubaranaa
reply
share
bell-simone
14 years ago
She cared for both of them, but her fear of growing old "alone" made her accept things in Roger that she knew she should not. She was living in denial, pretending that she did not want to be married, when it was the very thing she sought.
I believe she loved Roger; she also loved Philip, but she could not face society's possible reaction to the age difference.
She wanted outward manifestation of happiness and normalcy, instead of true, inward happiness, she would've found with Philip.
http://www.classicstarsonline.com
http://www.peterstrauss.net
reply
share
naillon-2
14 years ago
I think part of the problem was that Philip was looking for a mother figure, and Paula was looking for someone she could depend on, rather than someone who depended on her. When she was involved with Philip, she came home to find him asleep on the bed, not working, just waiting for her to get off work so he could be with her. He was far too dependent, even if Paula had been a woman who had the courage to break things off with Roger and stay away from him.
I feel that Paula was addicted to unhappiness. She knew Roger would never be faithful to her, but she stayed with him. She knew Philip would do anything for her, and was more than willing to marry her whenever she said the word, but she was still too hung up on Roger to work on her relationship with Philip.
Philip certainly needed to grow up and depend on himself, rather than making Paula the center of his existence. In that respect, he and Paula had more in common than either of them knew. They were both dependent on and clinging desperately to people who weren't right for them. Paula cheated on Philip (emotionally) just as Roger cheated on her. She was long accustomed to being in a dysfunctional relationship, so she didn't know anything about being in a healthy one, or making one healthy. Had she stayed with Philip, she would have needed to lay down the law and make sure he worked and didn't spend the whole day sleeping. He also needed a social life apart from her. She just didn't know how, though; she was used to being passive and letting the man in her life roll over her.
I like to think of Paula getting it together a year or so after the movie ended, and seeking out Philip. But she had missed her chance.
reply
share
leggycat-1
14 years ago
Naillon, I completely agree with you. Thanks for the explanation.
reply
share