MovieChat Forums > Grey Gardens (2009) Discussion > Dave Poland critiques the film (interest...

Dave Poland critiques the film (interesting review)


"The big question that comes out of the experience of the documentary is, “How did these women get here?” And the doc doesn’t make any effort to answer that question, though some of the film’s great moments are seeing the sense of loss in the eyes of both characters, some things expressed in an oblique way in comments.

The answer, I have learned in the next two incarnations of the tale, is, simplistically, that the mother (Big Edie) had a bad combination of being both co-dependent and delusional in thinking she was truly independent, all in a period where women’s work in wealthy society was marriage and kids. The daughter (Little Edie) shared her mother’s ambition about being independent as well as suffering a serious co-dependence issue. This schizo thinking led to a bad marriage – and an eventual divorce - for Big Edie and no marriage at all for Little Edie.

Dramatically, this is a tough nut to crack, as both women get in their own way and mostly have themselves to blame for their plight. The reason it is so compelling in the doc is that we are watching the results and like reading a novel, we fill in those blanks for ourselves, while at the same time being overwhelmed by what is in front of us. In the musical, it leaps from bright and shiny to the dregs of these lives. The HBO film aspires to filling in some of that middle… and it may be an impossible task.

Simply, there is about 20 missing years of deterioration and whether by design or because there is no better answer, it is missing in this film as it is in the doc and musical, but somehow, because the film is a straight drama, you feel the hole as an audience.

And while I hate to tell a filmmaker what I would have liked him or her to do, I wonder whether there was a better answer in a more raw portrayal? Both the doc and the musical address the idea of sexual jealousy between mother and daughter. Not so much this film. What the film does offer that the other versions do not is an actual affair for Little Edie. Yet, the film doesn’t really dig into its raw power, just the idea that Edie gets hurt by a married man acting like a married man.

What I wanted to know, to be frank, is whether Little Edie, who cock teases the boys in another scene, likes sex. Does she see it as a means to an end? Is it something she truly experiences with passion?

I guess that issue circles around the bigger issue for the film… what are these women passionate about? Anything? Nothing? Are they dead of heart… dead of loins? If so, why? Is it really just as simple as confusion and missed opportunity?"

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/04/review_hbos_gre.ht ml

reply


no movie could possibly tell the entire story of 2 peoples' lives, that's impossible. it's especially impossible since this movie is a fictional account with hollywood touches.

"This schizo thinking led to a bad marriage"

this wording means he doesn't know what schizophrenic thinking is, i wouldn't take this author seriously for a minute. he has zero credibility with me for not using a word he understands.

reply

Roger Ebert makes mistakes about plot points and other things in his reviews all of the time. I don't think that makes his opinions totally invalid.

reply


"Roger Ebert makes mistakes about plot points and other things in his reviews all of the time."

armando,
ebert didn't write that review, poland wrote it.

there was no sub plot in this movie about how these ladies lived.

reply

Yeah, I know Ebert didn't write it. I was using him as an example of another person who sometimes makes mistakes, but still is worth listening to.

reply


"I was using him as an example of another person who sometimes makes mistakes, but still is worth listening to."

armando,
i really don't pay attention to critics who make mistakes. lol i like to make my own mistakes!

reply