Interesting thoughts everyone!
In the movie, I think it was mostly HIS FAULT for not communicating. I think their problems could've been solved prior to the affair. They had money to get away, dump the kid off at Grandma's, etc.
@dave_buffalo I've had this discussion with a friend and she pointed out the same. It's funny, because that is something I hadn't thought of - until she (and now you) brought my attention to it.
I think the reason I hadn't noticed this, is, that for me, he gave
enough signs that he was no longer happy with the deal: While we didn't see every single day of their 18-months-marriage, so we don't know how many
discussions on the problems of relationship they had had; we certainly did get to see a scene of him saying that he needs time for himself quite explicitly though. Now I realize many people will find even this "too subtle". For some people (like myself) though, it's already the last resort: if I have to
request something with words (no matter how softly spoken), it's already an ultimatum: Before vocalizing it, there have already been other signs: hints in other conversations, dissatisfaction with situations.
I have a friend who has a pokerface. When I once told him that "you know, I can never tell if you are serious, or trolling us"; his reply was that "if you were a friend, you'd know". To the day, I still don't know if his reply was serious or another joke, but he's got a point:
If the other person knows and cares about you, wouldn't the person already be familiar enough with your patterns to read you?
And I'm not saying
read the things you are hiding (many people can do that too), but I'm referring to the things that you are openly bringing forward for the others to see. The things
you are communicating. And for me, people are constantly communicating things with the bodies, behaviors, in my world, words are just another way among many. People can tell if their cat or dog is happy, wants to poop or go out, and these pets don't have eyebrows, anthropomorphic faces, let alone the ability to phrase sentences. People can understand if their car is in good shape by hearing the noises it makes!
Having my lines trespassed a lot by people who never even realized that (until too late), I understand that people have different levels of sensitivity towards others. Nobody is to blame. We tend (nobody is exempt) to assume that others will express themselves the way we would. But this is often not the case. At work, in a queue, or at the bus, we sometimes opt for non-confrontational tolerance or we "amplify" the intensity of our expressiveness so that it matches what we assume is needed for the particular case. But this is taxing, and in a personal relationship (let alone intimate one), I wouldn't want to be always stepping it up so that I'm being understood.
I am not even saying, that "I don't want to be constantly stepping it up, but I do want the other to be constantly trying to read between the lines". IMO, when you direct your attention to something, anything, you become more familiar with it. Spend enough time in the dark, your senses start heightening. Spend enough time staring at goats, you start being able to tell them apart. Spend enough time observing a painting, you start seeing more details.
But
if you don't care to see, you can spend a whole lifetime in a gallery, and never know a thing about colors and art.
Similarly, if you don't care to truly see the other, you never learn anything about him.
So in my opinion (back to the movie), if she
cared about him, she would had (coincidentally - merely by exposure) learned some of his subtle ways.
At the very least (low emotional intelligence perhaps? low perceptiveness?), she would know that "if he makes a verbal comment about it, it has to be addressed immediately; he's at his limits".
In other words, if she can't read his ways, it's probably a sign that she had always been too self-absorbed, to ever "invest" in somebody else: No motivation to pay attention to the other, no motivation to change things to satisfy the other (and we can see that in part with her final decision,
not to step down from the company).
Still, I'm not saying that it's
her fault, or that we
should care to know others, or that we
should change things to satisfy others, far from it. I have no answer. I doubt there is one answer to what a functioning relationship is. After all he chose her, as much as she did - I'm simply enjoying the discussion, and hearing opinions on such controversial topics :)
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
First of all, some very good posts here.
Next is regarding the fault question, in my experience it is almost always the case that both parties share in fault. But at the same time one can be more, even much more, responsible than the other. But rarely is one side totally free of fault. After all, none of us are perfect, so that is an unreasonable standard.
Having said that the husband was mostly at fault, I am sure most if not all here would agree. So then how was Jules at fault, even if much less so?
I think it has to do with the issue of communicating. I agree that the husband's cheating was probably intricately involved in a lack of that. Since the film does not explicitly address it, we are left with clues and deductions.
One deduction I think must be made is that once the couple decided that he would stay home and she be the breadwinner, it would be simple human nature on Jules's part to not see any potential indicator of problems or regrets about that decision. We don't like to focus on doubts about the net effect of decisions we want to make, having made them.
Some here have referred to the affair as an assertion of the husband's masculinity, which is probably a bit much even if possible for this or that particular person in such a situation. It is not implausible, after all.
But more of an issue, I think, is that the film does make clear being Mister Mom was not the husband's desire all along. It was an ACCOMMODATION to what Jules wanted to do. That being the case, as time went on was it reasonable to expect he might have been something less that terribly thrilled having to live with that decision?
But it would be human nature for Jules to not look to closely for signs of that sort, indicating her husband had doubts and was to at least some extent unhappy with the arrangement.
Having said that the burden was on him, if that was the problem, to raise the subject rather than respond by engaging in adultery. Obviously.
But to some extent the process by which he ended up in some other woman's bed also had to do with attraction and availability. The film did show that he had something of a lack of interest in having sex with his wife. I have to take it that he was young and healthy enough that it should not have been the case that he had nothing left for her as it were because of sex with the other woman. My take instead is that the husband was perhaps all along losing interest in Jules.
In fact the element of guilt involved in the reconciliation is very problematic. Sure he should have felt guilty, and maybe going forward they could work it out with the moral reminder present that having a marriage means you don't cheat. But will that be enough? Imo the film glosses over this (a big problem for the film overall).
One other thing I think was also too neatly handled by the film was why it was the best choice for them to have the husband give up his work to become the house husband. Again I did not see that as something he was interested in all along. Sure he showed he was trying to have a good attitude about it, and hold up his end. But for me I did not find that very convincing. (Perhaps I am projecting, but there it is.) There was an alternative, which in fact many people do, despite the obvious downside, and that is he could have kept working, and they could have relied on help to take care of the daughter. In that connection I was amazed that they did not revisit that part of their arrangement as they reconciled (or perhaps I missed something). Imo and fwiw for anyone in such a situation you really should go back to the original decision and see if it is necessary to stick with it.
After all, the real question for this couple going forward is not whether the adultery should have ended their marriage. I don't think it does or should in all situations. The real question is how likely they are to overcome this crisis, and not have it or something like it happen again. As it stood at the film's end here, I think there were good reasons to think this couple has not put all their problems behind them.
It might not be adultery, either.
Now I think I should also mention that I am not saying all house husbands are fundamentally and necessarily unhappy to some extent. Not at all, not for everyone and every situation. But here I think it was clear that the husband did have a career he gave up not because he wanted to for reasons intrinsic to that career, but in order to accommodate Jules's career.
I think that covers it for now.
reply
share
std01077
8 years ago
well said @kenny-164!
The real question is how likely they are to overcome this crisis, and not have it or something like it happen again. As it stood at the film's end here, I think there were good reasons to think this couple has not put all their problems behind them.
I must agree. The solution they came up with, was no long-term solution at all. He realizes that he had strayed from his initial commitment, and was ready to try again, while she realized she should had been more true to herself. Probably they just bought themselves some time.
Still, I think the movie wasn't trying to give us the impression that the problem was solved, or make us conclude about the relationship being successful or not - The got a second chance at it, but won't know if the relation has worked until the sequel ;)
Imo, the movie merely wanted to focus on showing different crisis' and how we grow up to know ourselves better through them - learn a bit about yourself, become a bit truer, take a breath, and live another day to fight!
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
"Imo, the movie merely wanted to focus on showing different crisis' and how we grow up to know ourselves better through them - learn a bit about yourself, become a bit truer, take a breath, and live another day to fight"
I think that is accurate. But the problem is for this couple learning about themselves did not go far enough. They just more or less said they would try and do better.
There is a problem here, as your previous posts have addressed. I think to a large extent the "be true to yourself" theme here, mixed somewhat with a feminist one, rang generally true. Jules understands that she should not have to give up her company, her creation and her means of engagement with the world.
But the way in which it also suggests she can do that and keep her marriage going without any real change on her part in their division of labor is not compelling. Now to be clear I am not saying this is something as egregious as a plot hole. It is to be sure entirely plausible that this couple would in effect buy themselves some time rather than really go through a more complete analysis of their situation. And perhaps the implication that their marriage has been fixed is, after all, not really there. Perhaps it was intended that this be ambiguous.
Whatever the intent, I agree it has not been resolved.
reply
share
std01077
8 years ago
I think you caught another fish:
I think to a large extent the "be true to yourself" theme here, mixed somewhat with a feminist one, rang generally true
But the way in which it also suggests she can do that and keep her marriage going without any real change on her part in their division of labor is not compelling. Now to be clear I am not saying this is something as egregious as a plot hole.
As you say, there is definitely something
not compelling: I think it has to do with
how casually the script-writers/director allowed this paradox to exist; to the point that it feels that they tried to
conceal it.
Again, as you observe
feminism and the
be-true-to-yourself themes are valid on their own, but they do not guarantee that two individuals will manage to make their marriage work. Of course we are never explicitly told that the marriage
did work (we were merely told that they got another chance to work on it) - still, as audience we were expecting
a solution to the crisis at the climax of the movie. We were given a climax, it was a big epiphany moment for both Jules and Matt, they hugged, were happy about it, they acted as if it the crisis was resolved. The paraphernalia of a climactic resolution were there for the audience to take it - everything, except the actual resolution.
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
std,
Oh yes, one possibility is the writers simply did not know where to go with this "resolution". Which is a troubling possibility. It is one thing for a couple to truly resolve an issue so that they can move on, eventually (hopefully) dealing with some other issue or issues, as life has a tendency to present us with. For the reasons I mentioned above I don't think that really happened here. Although, having said that, we can't rule out that they may have momentarily thought they did resolve it, which could explain their behavior.
The question is whether the casualness you refer to was intentional for not compelling reasons on the writers' part - not knowing where to go with this. Or whether the casualness is on the part of the characters. If the latter I think this is a bit of a flaw in the film, since it is not clear.
What is clear is I don't think the characters have solved the underlying problem. They didn't even revisit their original decision regarding their division of labor, even if a revisit left them in agreement to leave that division as is. Even that would have been more plausible as "an answer" than what was in the film.
We are left with the prediction that this couple is going to have to go over this again one way or another somewhere down the road. So much so that I border on calling it implausible that they will not.
reply
share
LukeLovesFilm28
8 years ago
But the way in which it also suggests she can do that and keep her marriage going without any real change on her part in their division of labor is not compelling. Now to be clear I am not saying this is something as egregious as a plot hole. It is to be sure entirely plausible that this couple would in effect buy themselves some time rather than really go through a more complete analysis of their situation. And perhaps the implication that their marriage has been fixed is, after all, not really there. Perhaps it was intended that this be ambiguous.
I'm glad someone gets it.
The movie is basically saying that the man has to learn to be a better husband. She can do whatever the fck she wants. Screw Matt's individual needs and desires. He's a man, after all. He represents the "evil patriarchy," right? If two people are not willing to adapt to their partner's individual needs and desires, there is NO HOPE at all.
Men are not dogs. We can not be trained to be the perfect lapdogs that these feminists a$$holes want us to be. Then again, they do have plenty of manginas who don't have the dignity or self-respect to know better.
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
Luke,
I understand what you are saying, but that is not really the point I am trying to make here.
I think the backstory on this film is that Jules and Mack made a decision, by mutual agreement, to divide their responsibilities, their division of labor, a certain way.
As we proceed through the course of the events covered in the film, two problems with that decision appear to come up.
One is that it is clear now that the specific way in which they decided to divide their labor was not "necessary", and was not necessary even if Jules would have pursued, and would now continue to pursue, developing her business. For example Matt did not have to become Mr. Mom in order for that to occur. They could have found some different balance, with him still working and some caregiver or family member or both addressing that portion of the daily needs of their daughter for such assistance. (Not to digress, but while they probably and initially felt that the arrangement they first came up with would be beneficial to their daughter's development, there are obvious signs that the daughter's experience and what she has taken from it have led to a somewhat less than perfect result, as evidenced by her behavior.)
The second thing we have learned is that Matt is not happy with the way the deal worked out. And Jules sees how as a practical (as opposed to moral) matter that she has suffered from that result as well. Hence the need to confront their division of labor.
But... they do not really "confront" their initial decision in the sense that they do not really reconsider it. They REAFFIRM it without reconsidering. There is no evidence they looked at alternatives.
In addition while we can guess, we must speculate whether Matt will again find himself unhappy with the division of labor going forward. By the same token he might better accept that division, having considered the downside of a breakup with Jules. We can't rule that out, either.
My own guess is that he is more likely to again be unhappy at some point.
reply
share