"Film will only become an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper."-J Cocteau
******************************************************************
All of the things that you are confused about fall into place when you understand that this film has a very coherent feminist interpretation.
Elizabeth is the "victim" of a possessive and jealous husband ("male domination"). That is, he asserts "ownership" of her as his "right" as a man. Lewis reinforces his "ownership rights" over her by not letting her have access to the money in the household, by keeping her financially dependent on him, and Elizabeth clearly tells Thomas when they run off together that she's broke because Lewis controls the money. Lewis also asserts his "ownership rights" over Elizabeth by not letting her work, not letting her earn her own money, which would make her more independent,and he just wants her to stay at home, under his "control". This is why Lewis is shown to hate Elizabeth's friend Isabelle so much, because she is portrayed as a woman with a job, a woman "free from male domination", and Lewis, being a "male chauvinist sexist pig", can't even stand being around Isabelle because she contradicts his narrow minded, "sexist" attitudes about women.
This is why Isabelle told Lewis after Elizabeth ran off, that what Elizabeth saw in Thomas is not sex, but "freedom", freedom from the "male dominated", "patriarchal", traditional marriage.
Yes, it does look like Elizabeth was ready to abandon her kid to run off with Thomas, but in a feminist interpretation, this is "justifiable" because it shows how desperate Elizabeth was to escape from her "male dominated", traditional marriage.
From a feminist perspective, in the end Lewis went to retrieve Elizabeth and bring her back home not because he still loved her and forgave her, but simply because he was again asserting his "ownership rights" over "his" woman, his "property", Elizabeth.
Yes, the sad, anguished look on Elizabeth's face when Lewis was taking her back home was because she really didn't want to go back home, she still wanted her "freedom", from her "male dominated" traditional marriage. That the film makes it look like she is returning to Lewis shows, in feminist terms, how much Elizabeth's upbringing and education, in a "male donated", "patriarchal" society conditioned her to being "owned" by a man, to "submit" to the "male dominated" traditional marriage.
This is the significance of the opening of the film which shows Elizabeth on a solo vacation in Baden Baden. This solo trip, was a symbolic temporary "escape" from her "oppressive", "male dominated" traditional marriage. That Lewis is shown phoning her often in Baden Baden, and asking her why she didn't answer the phone previously, and what she was doing in Baden Baden shows that Lewis was asserting his "ownership rights" over Elizabeth even when she was on vacation, even when she was not in his presence.
I'm not saying that I buy into the "message" of this feminist interpretation of the film, nor am I even necessarily saying that I believe in feminism at all. All I'm saying is that a feminist interpretation makes things about the film understandable that otherwise would not be. Also, remember that this film was made in 1975, when the feminist movement was hot, and "just rocking and rolling", so a film with a feminist theme would've been appropriate for those times.
Also, this is a very deep and complex film that has several possible interpretations, a feminist interpretation being only one of them.
reply
share