MovieChat Forums > Every Time We Say Goodbye (1986) Discussion > Starkers for this movie (big spoiler)

Starkers for this movie (big spoiler)


I found the DVD (cheep, $7.50 or so at Target)--vaguely recognized the title from Tom Hanks's filmography but definitely recognized his fabulous face, circa 1988, on the cover. I am totally in love with this movie and with the two lovers (Hanks and the adorable girl).

What an incredibly romantic movie. Beautiful cinematography. Really a sweet plot, nothing terribly original about it except for the filming in Jerusalem and the Sephardic families and their unusual language--and the incredibly rough treatment of Sarah.

Certain plot elements really bug me, though. So here's my thought. Instead of sleeping with her that last night, as he did, and making that stupid promise, he should have REFUSED to have sex with her on her terms, slept on the floor until she came to him and begged for it and said YES, write me, dream of me, I will wait for you until the end of the war! I was really surprised that he gave in and accepted the night on her terms.

Of course that would have eliminated the source of the tension that makes us watch the movie through to the end. Still, it would have been a much better strategy for him to get what he wanted (which was not a night of sex so much as a promise that she would love him and await his return). Also--that would have been such a HANKSIAN thing to do.

I found her behavior a little hard to comprehend. Also I don't understand what caused her to change her mind. Was it realizing that her father (who made his formal "we will disown you" speech right before she ran to find her lover) was not worth the sacrifice she had decided to make (abandoning David and marrying Nessim?)

I thought that Nessim was a great character--it was amazing that he wanted to marry her even though she insisted that he understand that she was "ruined."

Anyway--what a cool movie. Hope there will be more posts about it--I'd love to share thoughts.

Jedi-R-Us

reply

I watched this movie last night, and I really enjoyed it. I thought their glances (when they first met, across the room, etc.), which were supposed to be inconspicuous, were so romantic. I believe Tom Hanks is one of the most gifted actors out there, for he plays so many different types of characters and has such a great way of immersing himself into the film being created. Two thumbs up for this movie.

reply

Actually I find most of the story makes sense - though sometimes barely. I would have liked to know more about his back story, and their forestory together.

I really enjoy the idea of Jerusalem being a back water to a raging conflict instead of being the front line. The whole idea of Jerusalem being an island of tranquility away from the war was just a fantastic idea, and allows one to think about the place in different terms.

Prior to 1900, their would have been only a few saphardic jews and everyone else palestinian arabs. There were only a few hundred thousand before the war, and even after WWII and the exodus there were as many as a million jews in Israel by the time of their founding in 1948. Though tensions were building between Arab and Jews over palestines future, in was nothing until 1945. And as sephardic jews, the Arabs wouldn't have animosity pointed towards Sarah's family, they had been living there peacefully for 450 years.

In regard to the decision she makes, I think her father, in telling her that if she chooses Hanks, she loses her family, made her realize that she was making a decision in trying to marry Nessim. If she marries Nessim, she gets to stay in the community that she was raised in, but she's guaranteed a loveless life. Hanks coming back to Jerusalem gives her a second chance to reconsider her decision. Her father laying out the consequences illustrates to her that she is making a decision. But he also lays out the cost in concrete terms. And perhaps before that, the cost were too vague to her and so may have looked higher than it actually was. Once she knows all the costs, being shunned by her family, versus living in a loveless marriage, She's able to make the calculation more accurately. Furthermore, and maybe she could have told this already, living in non-integrated communities was to become harder and harder. Within a few years hundreds of thousands of askenazi jews form Europe would come, busting up the sephardic community to some thing much wider and much more open.

A big source of tension in the movie is the role that religion plays in life. Of God, hanks says, he has a lot to explain (he's talking about suffering and never, more was there suffering going on than in 1940s). This turns the whole issue of religion inside out. Her father further's hanks case by saying "suffering serves no use, no use at all." It puts religion on the defensive, and in the face of love denighed, and suffering magnified, the case is decided for love and against religious orthodoxy.

I try to imagine the forestory. What comes next? After Hanks leaves on the plane Sara has the nasty bit of breaking her hasty engagement with Nissam. Playing him for a fool several times over, further proof that God has some explaining to do, at least to Nissam. She then has to wait for the end of the war. If Hanks survives, and lets say that he does go to Burma, so it would seem that he does survive because the qualitative and tactical edge in aircraft shifts to the Allies there.

My guess is that Sarah bonds with Victoria, who has already been cast out, forming a sorrority of the shuned creating for Victoria a sense of familial, and a bridge back to the community from which she was shunned, furthermore, perhaps Sarah's more liberal brother would maintain a sense of community with Victoria. Perhaps this would be enough for her to make it through to the end of the war and stay married to Peter. I want to thing so. Sarah of course would still be golden in that she hadn't married outside the community yet. My guess is that Hanks comes back and gets Sarah. He then would take her to the U.S. simply because he could. Sarah would then miss out on the next sixty years of war and difficulty in Israel, but would return often.

After the war, given the role Hanks played in WWII fighting fascism, even before his own country got invovled, and the role America plays in helping Israel and the Jews, I think her father and at least her one brother would back off the hard core stance. I am going to guess that Hanks comes back to the United States, and might choose to live in NY, Chicago, Seattle or LA - all having large Jewish populations and perhaps some sephardim. The deciding factor would have to be getting a Job. I lean towards L.A. for several reasons: in the western half of the U.S. - something closer to his familiarity, It has a climate something closer to Sarah's familiarity, L.A. boomed after the war, plenty of jobs, including jobs in the aircraft industry, a poosibility for his character. The other likelyhood would be Seattle and Chicago in that order because supposedly Sarah had family in those places - Seattle being closer to Hanks character's home. Anyone that grew up in the west has a hard time settling in the east - so given a choice stays in the west.

In regard to her family. Her one brother would play the bridge role. Eventually her father comes to visit. Eventually she and David (hanks) go back to visit. And eventually the family's norm of shunning outsiders starts to look decidedly archaic. Little by little everyone becomes reconciled.

Another possibility of course is for Hanks to stick around Jerusalem for a while and help the Israelis start their airforce. He might get more street cred with her family.

Obvously I wish they would have developed this part more fully. The back story and the fore story especially, had enormous potential for drama. Unfortuntately only the writer of the movie knows what would have happened to the characters.

I am not so sure if Sarah and David would have embraced formal Religion together. Not sure. But Hanks is obviously a-religious and in embracing Hanks, Sarah is embracing areligiousness too.

Damn I wish there was more story to go on.

reply

Sarah's problem is far more profound than you might imagine. So is Victoria's. Sarah is not made of the same material as Victoria. Once Sarah makes up her mind, her loyalty knows no bounds.

The problem is not where they will go. The problem is asking a woman to give up what she's always known. Try it this way: suppose you were suddenly cast into a life exactly the opposite to what you now have. Suppose your mother in law was the ruler in the house. You had no say at all. None. How would you respond?

That was her problem.

It was not her family she was giving up: it was everything she knew and loved. Her father was not cruel when he threatened disownment. He was stating exactly what his culture demanded of him. He loved her, but he would neither force her to marry or not to marry. Each choice had its consequences. He was prepared to pay for enforcing the rules. That's what fathers do. There is a line. Good fathers make sure everyone always knows where the line is. They may bend the line, they'll never permit those in his charge to cross it. Mothers usually know how to make exceptions.

As to her religion, David would never ask her to give up her religion. Never. Not if he had any brains and he did. They could not spend their lives arguing about religion: both were too intelligent to do that. If the man works, the religion of the children become the mother's responsibility. Wise men learn this very early in the marriage and accept it.

reply

Ok so I haven't totally analyzed this movie like the above posts. But we have to take into consideration that Sarah's father was the son a liberal woman. We can tell this by her total understanding of Sarah's love for Davi. She also tells Sarah that she never made the right decision or know what it would be. Sarah's father is also a very understanding man he was the one the that was supposed to feel ashamed of his daughter not the mother, and of course he does not. He actually listens to her and talks to her and in the scene where he is telling her that she would loose her family he does so more out of tradition than actual belief he does so so weakly you can't believe him and neither does Sarah.
I tend to think and have so for the past twenty some odd years that Sarah marries Nissim to make her mother and her crazy brothers happy but a few years later David returns for her and she leaves Nissim and moves to AMerica. After all at that point her family would be a little bit more open as is the case as years go by and you realize that not all your kids are going to follow in your footsteps and you have to be more flexible.
Religion isn't even a question its about spirtuality for both and plus David's fickleness towards his own religion make me think he would not mind converting if that would redeem him in the eyes of Sarah's family

reply

You make some excellent points. Actually, this is the first time I've looked here in two years since I wrote the above, and really can't believe I wrote that insightful. And, it's been two years since I've seen the movie. But still it stays with me. I really love this movie. Kind of an updated Casablanca of sorts.

In regard to religion, I don't see excessive religiosity in her. Religion is tradition, but she always seems like an outside bystander in the midst of its practice.

David isn't just fickle towards his own religion, he's fickle towards religion. I come from a similar relationship between my father and mother. David never joins her religion. The point of his father being a minister, it to emphasize that he comes from a religious family too and has purposely backed away from it.

He makes his conviction known to her and her response is to look at him and kiss him. I interpret that to mean she's joining him, not the other way around. The fact was, she was half way out the door before she ever meets David. She follows the tradition, but for traditions sake.

Ah, what a wonderful movie. But I still feel as before. I wish there was more back story and I wish there was more fore story.

reply

In Judaism children inherit their race and genealogy through their mother's line. Had Sara married outside her faith she would have lost every contact with her family, her faith and her culture. When women marry outside Judaism they are lost to the men inside the faith. A man can convert and be accepted into the faith but unless they're living within a community their children will grow up without knowing their rich Jewish heritage. That's what she wanted for her family.






Some things you just can't ride around...

reply