I totally love this movie. But I hated . . . [spoilers]

I have fallen in love with this movie, I have inhaled, absorbed, internalized it to the point that I can quote and sing it pretty much verbatim. I've drawn up timelines, analyzed the color palette of the costumes, all of this pretty much in isolation because NO ONE else is posting or, apparently, thinking about this movie--I guess I'm about 12 years too late. It is really the most romantic movie I can think of and time after time leaves me breathless and in an endorphin-induced state of bliss.

Nevertheless there is a huge section of the movie that I absolutely hate, something that Fletcher does that I think is unbelievably stupid and totally out of character with Fletcher as I envision him. Here it is:

Within a day or two after bringing Ros to San Antonio (and after knowing her for only a day), he subjects her to a party where she meets (1) his "oddball, cracker" friends, (2) his nosy grandmother who makes far too many assumptions about Ros and Ros's acceptance of Fletcher, and (3) a large social group all of whom seem to know (or assume) things about her, when she knows nothing about them. This is SO out of keeping with the character of Fletcher as I understand him. I know that had I been her, I would have run screaming from that garden party long before I got buttonholed by Celeste Holm in that lovely indoor patio.

As I understand Fletcher's character, he is not perfect, he is floundering about trying to figure out how to make her fall in love with him. But his instincts are pretty much spot-on as he teases, flirts and romance-talks her to a fever pitch of desire. He brings her back to San Antonio where he can have more control of her and to introduce her to his way of living. The metaphor of a puppeteer is a little crude, but that is exactly what he is--and very effectively up to a certain point in the story--controlling her feelings (emotional as well as sensual) by keeping her aroused and unfulfilled, and refusing to give her the thing that she claims to want (sex) until he knows that what she is really giving him is her soul, not just her body.

That stupid party literally ruins everything and I just don’t think it is something Fletcher would have done. Granted it is a movie and some kind of a conflict/crisis had to arise out of which the final resolution would come, but the crisis could have been precipitated from an event that didn’t completely take the movie off course. Rather than the (stupid) party the screen time could have been used to develop the romance, and especially to explore those dreams that the two shared. I also felt that we were cheated from hearing Fletcher's full exposition of the "family trait" and his own dreams--interrupted by the beer delivery and the party! Aaargh! How much better if he could have completed it at the table with Ros, when she is going along with it, rather than later, when she is fighting him and he uses his "vision" as a trump card (and fails).

I guess the bottom line for me is I wish the director/writer had developed the relationship more deeply, that we had had an opportunity to see what happened when they discovered that they had the same dreams (that could easily have been the crisis that would precipitate Ros’s running away).

I’m just sorry that the director made some bad choices when good choices were easily within his grasp. He could have presented a more persuasive case for Ros to fall in love with Fletcher.

As it is, I fast forward from the moment the beer is delivered to the moment that Fletcher and Ros start their final scenes together (the argument in the "Ida room" and outdoors, culminating when Ros asks for Fletcher's keys). I really like Toby Huss (he’s great in this as Cameron, as well as as one of the ubiquitous companions in “Bedazzled”) but his tamale speech is just pathetic, as is much of the dialogue through the party scene.

You--lighten up. You--big trouble. You--get in the car.