This is food for feminists

I really have to add my pennyworth to the comment made by Smacklab "yes it's bad for the kids, but......"

BUT WHAT? but her actions were justified? but they'll get over it? What the hell kind of trite comment is this?

Why is it so difficult for some people to comprehend that within a family, it is not just the bond between husband and wife that counts? What about the bonds between the parents and the children? Should these take second place to those between the parents? When any two people decide to have a family together, they should work as hard as they can to keep their family together. If this proves impossible, then any split in the marriage has to be undertaken with the childrens' interests put first. If things don't turn out quite like one partner dreamed they might on the honeymoon night, this is not ANY KIND of justification for one partner to deprive the other from being a parent to their children, nor is it any justification for depriving the child of their parent. BUT NOTHING.

Whilst I found this film very thought provoking, ultimately the only message it delivers is that you will never know if you've married a psycho or not. The message certainly cannot be that Alexandra was in any way justified to do what she did, or that her husband deserved his fate or that the children deserved being separated from their Father forever. She was not physically abused and whereas she considered herself to have been mentally and even sexually abused, surely she should bear some responsibility for not communicating her unhappiness in this regard to her partner. I agree with the poster who said her character was two dimensional. There was no suggestion that she was physically forced to have sex against her will, yet she complained about suffering the humiliation of having sex with her husband for fifteen years. Quite why she would consent to something she found so clearly upsetting is a mystery and the film offers no explanation.

Much more importantly, however, there was NO indication in the film that the children were aware that there were any problems between their parents. The film portrayed two normal, well-adjusted and happy children who clearly loved their Father. Alexandra, wholly consumed with the desire to punish her husband for perceived transgressions was prepared to inflict immense suffering on her own children for her own perverse gratification. I was unable to sustain any sympathy for her character, particularly when it became clear that she had deceived them as to what lay ahead. In such circumstances, for anyone to state that "he totally had it coming" is clearly the opinion of someone who has no children of their own and still looks at the world in a wholly selfish "what's in it for me" manner. No one parent has the right to deprive their children of access to the other parent unless the children themselves are suffering as a result of that parent's actions. This was so clearly not the case in this film, which is why I get so mad when people make judgements like "yes it's bad for the kids , but."

If people paid half the attention they should to their children's well-being, both mentally and physically, children who by the way never had any say in their choice of parents, instead of being concerned primarily with their own self-gratification, the world could be a better place. We may make a mess of our own lives, some or even all of our own dreams may not be realised, but please let's do what we can for the next generation. They might be the ones who finally get it right.

totally had "it" coming?
"it" = (in nor particular order)
- gun pointed at him
- locked up
- never to see a sign of his children again
- THEIR children never seeing their father again (presumably she'll blame the estrangement on him in some specific way?)
- lack of any sense of closure other than "vanished"
and so on...

As to the scene of him masturbating at the end...actuallly, at the very end, (I think -- I don't want to watch it again) he replayed over and over again the clips of his children... the two scenes appearing so close together -- what an effective portrayal of all (most?) of us human beings? A bit like the madonna-whore thing, but equally applicable to men: I'm her best friend, i'm a confidant, i'm a dirty, hot lover, i'm a father, i'm a worker, i'm...


One thing that I've come to think of a clear sign of madness: she talks in terms of their children forgetting about him. Does anyone think that the memories of children that age will completely fade?

How about if we try a thought experiment.

Try reversing the roles in the film. As I cannot recall a man ever complaining about being seen as only a sex object, let's try it with Steve being treated only as a source of money (and yes, I've seen a marriage like that).

Play it out in your head. Can you side with Steve imprisoning Alexandra while he takes off with the kids? Or would you see him locked up as dangerous and unstable the moment he brandishes a gun on camera and accuses Alexandra of infidelity?

I think this movie is ultimately about how two people can impact each other – how every action has a reaction. Although many of the characters actions within the film are by no means normal or within the realms of reality (one hopes), the concepts presented explicitly show human emotion as fragile and raw. The movie uses shock value to demonstrate its messages. I believe that this film shows how two people can utterly destroy each other through their actions and through their inaction. It also illustrates that it is possible to live a lifetime with someone without ever really knowing who they are. To me, this movie presents an incredible tragedy. This is a film about marriage and more generally, relationships and how these two people have destroyed each other and shaped each other through their own action or inaction. Furthermore, this movie shows that human relationships can be so complex and diverse that there may not be a ‘right’ person and a ‘wrong’ person – each of the protagonists did heinous things to each other. I think the debates within the posts prove that there is no black and white line between who is right and who is wrong. I felt myself siding with each of them at different points throughout the film but ultimately I walked away thinking: how tragic – and how scary. Personally I consider the film a bit of a warning – your actions have consequences: even if you don’t feel you deserve them. I did 'enjoy' (if you can) the film - it provoked me to think and that made it really worthwhile for me.

I think the fact that it wasn't realistic WAS a weakness. The only point I can see of the approach taken is to emphasize that the degradation and emotional neglect Alexandra experienced in her relationship was either:
1) in the filmmakers' minds, comparable to what Steve experienced during Alexandra's retribution, or
2) that what Steve had done was bad enough to make her snap.

I can understand the thinking that sometimes, people remain oblivious of others until they are shocked into reality. Alexandra's initial pulling of the gun made sense to me from that angle. The cancer hoax took it even further - but Steve's reaction to that revelation showed, I thought, that he cared about her for more than her body. I thought that scene showed that perhaps if she had communicated her concerns better to him, he may have come around. Regardless, if she HAD tried and failed to make him understand, she always had the option of divorce.

Even if you recognize this movie as not being based in reality, I don't see how you could applaud the extremes taken. While her pain was understandable, what she did by removing her children from their father would surely have inflicted similar pain on the kids. Even in fantasy, how can you see any good in that?