MovieChat Forums > Flannel Pajamas (2006) Discussion > One Sided Relationship!

One Sided Relationship!

posted 17 years ago by AmyIsrael
20 replies | jump to latest

It's a One Sided Relationship!

He pays her student loans.

She enters the marriage in debt, he pays it off.

She gets fired all the time, he gives her his life savings from since he was a child to help her start her own business.

Once the business starts, he has to run to the store to help her get ice otherwise she will be late, and he has to help her with her business that he paid for.

She helps him with nothing.

She hates his family, and kicks his brother out of HIS apt.

She expects him to spend time with all her family members

At Xmas, they go to her family's place.

He is allergic to dogs, and she wants a dog in a small apt. There are already 2 people in that small apt. She is selfish, inconsiderate, stupid, and everything is his fault!!! Because he doesn't listen to her!!!

Her mother hates him because he is Jewish!

She doesn't kiss him goodnight.

There is absolutely no reason why he should ever fall for this Shiksa! He has smooth creamy skin, while she has blotchy freckled skin.

What a ridiculous situation! She never loved him; she just used him all along.

[–] guiseofyouth 17 years ago

"There is absolutely no reason why he should ever fall for this Shiksa! He has smooth creamy skin, while she has blotchy freckled skin."

oh my god hahahahahaahahahahahaha

[–] dev139 17 years ago

ridiculous, perhaps .. but very realistic ..

he is in love .. and in the end he loses everything.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grhmb 17 years ago

She was ready to get knocked up but he wanted to treat her like an expensive whore. At a certain point in a relaionship biology takes over. All that delicious sex...it's all about making babies...

[–] grhmb 17 years ago

Yes! The student loan business suggestd that something was wrong. The business of the student loan being paid off by the boy friend came up in a Steve Martin movie recently; it was even worse in the Steve Martin movie because the boy friend was much older, older enough to be the woman's father. It does begin to feel that some whoring is going on when this happens. But perhaps it's only the contemporary equivalent of buying a woman jewellery.

In Flannel Pajamas it did seem like the relationship was built on convenience and not shared compassion. This is understandable in human behavior but can't make for very long marriages.

[–] C.S.Wood 16 years ago

She was ready to get knocked up but he wanted to treat her like an expensive whore.

Wait-- hold on a minute. At the time she kept pestering him to have a baby they had nothing but money/job problems. What sense does it make to intentionally bring a baby into the world when you're not financially stable? That's just irresponsible and stupid.

And even if they had a baby it wouldn't have changed anything. He'd still be sacrificing his life to prove his love to her and she'd get bored with the baby and blame him for ruining her life by getting her pregnant. After they got married, the relationship was doomed.

Make A Movie At http://www.thatmoviegame.com/

[–] amethyst1636 16 years ago

They discussed the baby issue when he proposed. He asked for two years to be married to her. SHE AGREED. It's not fair of her to insist it is time to have a baby when she agreed to two years previously. Plus he had just given up his job. What kind of moron do you have to be tp have a baby when nobody in the house has a job and you live in a huge 35th floor apt in Manhattan. That's irresponsible and childish. And she encouraged him to leave his job. It's not like he did it without consulting her.

And that business with dragging him to Montana? That wasn't fair either.

I am married. If I behaved like that towards my husband, I wouldn't blame him for leaving me. I certainly wouldn't expect him to beg me to stick around.

[–] seanymphette 15 years ago

Thank grhmb! Why that doesn't seem to be evident to the rest on this thread is beyond me. If they'd ever met a man like Stuart, who buys you jewelry, and cars, and apartments, and doesn't want you to have anything of your own, keep something for yourself, for sentimentality's sake, they'd understand how tedious it gets. Men like Stuart, who insist on buying people, are the first one's to throw it in your face, when you're in an argument. Sometimes you just have to walk away and leave it all behind you, give it all back, because no amount of stuff is worth feeling like you are "owned". The relationship was always on Stuart time. She had to ask him if it was the right time for everything "can I have a baby?", "can I have a dog?". Screw him! She was far to passive for my taste. I would've come home with a Portuguese Water Dog (hypoallergenic) and said "this is my life too, and I want some happiness, this dog makes me happy, so he is a condition of me continuing to live here. Get over it, or get to steppin'". See, men like that will stall you and stall you about having anything your way until your time and choices run out. When, all along all it took for Stuart to want a child was Nicole leaving. What a schmuck. He blew it, and what's sad is that, like most men, he doesn't even know why. What's really sad is he was really sweet, handsome, sexy, generous and probably could have been better, if she'd been more insistent, instead of just letting it build up until she couldn't take anymore.

[–] creegah-3 15 years ago

You are as bad as Nicole who was/is badly emotionally challanged. She was correct when she told Stuart "I come with a lot of baggage". What Stuart didn't realize is that there was enough baggage to fill a boxcar! Stuart tried to please everyone and wound up pleasing no one. Nicole was interested only in Nicole.

[–] raderpat 8 years ago

She really took him for a ride!! Hard to believe that he didn't realize it sooner.

[–] REYoung 17 years ago

I don't blame her for not wanting the brother around all the time. He was getting high. Some people don't feel comfortable with drug-user types.

As far as the student loans, I agree with you. She really should have insisted on paying the loans herself; it wasn't his responsibility to pay those.

Love isn't about who's prettier...

Besides, marriage vows don't state that you don't have to love the person anymore, if they get fired all the time. How the person is as a worker isn't relevant to how they are as a spouse.

[–] acwoodcraft-1 13 years ago

"Besides, marriage vows don't state that you don't have to love the person anymore, if they get fired all the time. How the person is as a worker isn't relevant to how they are as a spouse."

Oh, I couldn't disagee more. A job is still a relationship, albeit a business one. The fact that you continually can't or won't do what your employer wants in order to keep your job says volumes about how you would be in other relationships. I can see Nicole going thru life as a serial ex-wife.

A heart can be broken, but it still keeps a-beatin' just the same.

[–] tmcdaniel1 15 years ago

It seems like you got a heck of a lot out of 32 minutes!!!

If that is enough to inspire you to post to this forum I'd say you better go back and watch the whole thing. Maybe it got to you more than you think.

The fact that BOTH characters are realistically flawed kept me from catching the momentum for about that length of time. But, then I was hooked.

Your comments about Stuart are reasonable but, Nicole had AT LEAST as many flaws. Seems like a lot of the posters are pretty hard on Nicole.

You identified with her, that's OK. In some ways so did I.

But, Stuart, in spite of his flaws is basically a stand up guy....CLUELESS at times, but who in love isn't? If you watch the rest of the movie I think you'll see more to both of them.

[–] bullock607 15 years ago

While watching the movie, I was sure he loved her however, I wasn't so sure she loved him.

I hate hypocrisy

[–] seanymphette 15 years ago

Wow, what a jaded way of looking at it.

He "insisted" on paying off her loans because "he" didn't want anyone he loved to be saddled with worrying about paying off loans and interest. Listen to the dialog again. She said nothing. He is the one who kept making these monetary decision because he was a control freak.

He didn't mind if she got fired all the time, in fact he sat in her cubicle until she did, so they could go off and celebrate her freedom, plus have the perk of not having her job interfere with him having her all to himself.

Of course he had to help her with her upstart business, as most married couples, and families do. It doesn't matter who paid for it. What is the alternative? Not helping her and letting her fail (because in reality nobody who starts a business does it all on their own) and lose his investment? If all he had to do was get her some ice, he should be grateful.

There arrangement, as per his insistence, was that she didn't pay for anything. That's what he did. Remember "My greatest joy in life is making the people I love happy" (buying things).

She kicked his insane, suicidal brother out because he was being crude and disrespectful to her in her own home, as she should have. Plus he was getting on her nerves, as he would've gotten on mine. Remember, it was "their home", they were married! It was her home too, as per the family law codes of most states. If someone is being lewd in front of me in my own home they've got to go, and I don't care if it's Jesus. I would have called the police to escort them out if they wouldn't go. She's under no obligation to be shat on by his brother. They should have committed him, then maybe he wouldn't have killed himself.

She only wanted a dog, because he wouldn't agree to a baby. She was settling because he was unable to commit to the next big step. President Obama's daughters are allergic. They should have just looked for a hypoallergenic dog, like the Obama's did. That was just an excuse anyway, he didn't want her attention to be devoted to anything but him. That kind of relationship is very lonely, a dog is the least you should have.

While his mother's prejudice toward Jews was wrong, I don't think it's uncommon. A lot of older Christians, as well as Jews feel the way she did about intermarriage, so the film was accurate and truthful in that respect. At least she was honest about it, instead of lying like most people do.

You talk about the mother's hatred of Jews, while spouting the same kind hatred against a Gentile woman. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]