MovieChat Forums > The Intern (2015) Discussion > Whose fault was it (philosophical/moral ...

Whose fault was it (philosophical/moral discussion)?

posted 8 years ago by std01077
34 replies | jump to latest

Firstly, forgive me if I touch a sensitive topic. I have no intention of insulting; I'm merely trying to get a better understanding of what a healthy relationship is.

In the film we are left to believe that the husband cheated on his wife, because she was neglecting him/family. Others might say that he wanted to reaffirm his masculinity. I'll try and stay away from this particular discussion.
For me, "whose fault was it?" (and not "why") was the most thought-provoking part in this movie. - Of course we could easily say "it's both their fault" - but if somebody feels like it, I'd like to hear him/her elaborate. How should they had acted?

Three days after watching the movie, I'm coming back to share my thoughts, hoping to hear some constructive opinions that may help me understand better. The movie was truly enjoyable, and it's the first time that I watch an elegantly feminist movie. Even my arguments below, are not because I see a fault in the film; I'm merely raising an discussion topic. I'd be happy if anybody can point out faults in my way of thinking - or different perspectives! Not about the movie in particular, but about the way I see the relationships between the sexes.

Being a 30+ male myself and brought up in a patriarchal family (Greece) - with the father being the bread-bringer, always at work, never ever available to help at home, and mother staying at home, taking care of everything and keeping the whole thing running (kids, chores, shopping), I always harbored this intense guilt towards women that "we guys" tend to neglect family/household responsibilities and prefer to stick to our career. That we are sanctioned behind the "bread-bringer" facade that allows us to roam around, explore different things, aspiring for the goals/careers we set for ourselves... and delegating all "uninteresting, repetitive, supportive" chores, to our spouses who end up confined - slaves at home.

Maybe it's my own misguided impression that "raising a child and cooking VS a career" is less fun, but I suppose, if it wasn't a common belief, wouldn't feminists be fighting for their right in the kitchen and not out of it?
Then again maybe what people are fighting for is the right to choose - not one lifestyle over the other because it is "the good life" per se, but maybe because people ought to have the right to choose what they themselves want to do in this life, without having gender-assigned roles imposed on them. I certainly do not wish to offend anyone, these are merely my random thoughts - trying to get a better understanding

When the adultery was first exposed in the film, it struck me, that this guy was suffering from the same "mishandling" that women (traditionally) suffer in a typical marriage (at least older generations in this part of the world): He was stuck doing all the trivial/dull chores at home, while his wife was having her dream-career come true.

As the movie progressed, there was a twist: The screen-writer wanted us to understand that there was nothing wrong with her running the company. She was doing her dream, and her husband should had been okay with it. After all, the guy knew right from the start who he was getting married to. She was not pretending to be somebody else. He bought the whole package, so why complain now? Only kids (that are helpless/weak) or people lacking self-worth (=weak/helpless) can potentially feel neglected. No emotionally mature individual can feel being neglected. She had her life aspirations, he (originally) had his own aspirations - why would she need to be there to nurture his ego all the time, so that he feels "not-neglected"? (Not that I'm saying that it doesn't make sense as an argument; I'm merely writing them down)
We also understand that she had a passion, and his passion was not equally strong, which is also okay. Not all people are born with strong passions, some have to give way, be passive and become supportive.
She eventually sees the mistake in her original assumption that giving more time to the family will fix the marriage. The problem is his alone, no deference on her part could solve it. She gets her act together, and decides against giving up her business. So he has to either be okay with her decision, or hit the road. Luckily, by the time she understood that her personal passion is so important to her, he also comes to terms with his original decision, and her final decision (while made solely by her), doesn't clash with his. Very convenient - they were plain lucky.

Yet it left me really uneasy. Not in terms of script-writing; I don't mind.
But more in the sense of "what if". What if a real family is facing a similar dilemma? (and I'm sure many - if not all, have this kind of dilemmas). How does one go about solving it?

The movie (the way it appears to me) is saying "A partner feeling neglected, is no reason for you to step up and do something about it - it's his/her problem. He/she should had been more emotionally independent". "It's ok to put your individual aspirations over the family". "It is okay to expect somebody to back down so you can grow". "It's okay the way the cards are shuffled in this life - Some get the better part of the deal, some get the worse". "No reason to change anything, no reason to feel guilty for the good cards in your hand, no reason to reshuffle".
Was my guilt towards women, unwarranted all these years?
And to be honest, these arguments do sound rational, but there is something sad about them...isn't there?

I dunno... Maybe in life there are rarely win-win situations... Can it be that in most relationships there has to be one "partner" that is always on top? Or is it just me who sees such a conundrum?

I guess I should had gone to bed earlier ;)

[–] Nobody-27 8 years ago

When it comes to cheating, the answer is simple: it is always the responsibility of the one who is doing the cheating. The only exception would be when the cheating is just a technicality in a practically dead marriage where divorce is just a matter of court's approval. Otherwise, we are all capable of making our own decisions so we are also responsible for them. No one can make cheat if I don't want to do it - so no one else can be responsible other than me.

As for career and such, I don't see a problem with it. The way it was set up in the film was a bit unrealistic if not dumb: a successful marketing genius gives up his career in order to be at home while his daughter is at school and while his wife is struggling with a start-up. Am I the only one who thinks that his place is in that same company helping his wife run it - at least part-time?

I think that in life we all assume roles that we like, including stay at home moms and dads. However, many roles are perfect opportunities to complain about the other person: "Oh, I work just as much as you do honey, raising kids is not an easy task but you don't appreciate that" (while s/he has six nannies and three maids helping around the house).

Even when there are no nannies involved, there is no reason why someone should feel worse-off for staying home with kids. Heck, I"d kill for that opportunity - being with my kids all day long, playing with them, and cooking or working on my own projects while they are sleeping or playing outside.

[–] std01077 8 years ago

@Nobody-27,

I think that in life we all assume roles that we like, including stay at home moms and dads. However, many roles are perfect opportunities to complain about the other person: "Oh, I work just as much as you do honey, raising kids is not an easy task but you don't appreciate that" (while s/he has six nannies and three maids helping around the house).

That was a very good point you made over there! You've pointed out for me a trap I am falling in, again and again: Pitying others for roles they freely assume. To clarify a bit, (in the context of this movie), I'm not referring to the stay-at-home dad as being the role. The role I'm referring to is that of the neglected partner. The individual who got the short end of the stick and is struggling with it. I might be projecting here because we never got a look inside Matt's head, but at the very least, it's indicative of how I approached this movie in the first place when I opened this thread: The poor guy who was doing something he didn't enjoy.

Regardless of whether we do something out of what seems sheer obligation, there is always a hidden choice. At the very least (and a rather "noble" form), the choice is something in the lines of "If I do not perform these duties, others will suffer; and this is something I am not willing to accept". And like you say there can be many motivations that keep us on the hook. Some of these are well hidden inside of us; that even we are not often aware of (eg. martyrdom syndrome/passive aggressive tactics ).
The lack of clarity that this role was not thrust upon me, but was willingly assumed by me, is a recipe for suffering.

Even when there are no nannies involved, there is no reason why someone should feel worse-off for staying home with kids. Heck, I"d kill for that opportunity - being with my kids all day long, playing with them, and cooking or working on my own projects while they are sleeping or playing outside.

Once again, you have hidden a gem in your words: There is no reason indeed. It's a choice we all make whether to see a situation in positive light or not.
Still, making choices is our birthright so I don't think we can judge anybody's decision on how to play out his/her part. If somebody doesn't feel happy for staying at home with the kids, it's his/her right to be grumpy about it and to eventually seek resolution.
But I see now, that at the same time it is no ones responsibility to accommodate another human-being's role-playing drama (in context: the neglected husband). It is okay to love this person, it's okay to respect the way he/she wishes to play this role and even help him/her play it through (in context: by being the neglecting wife); sometimes it's okay to try and guide him/her out of the salf-constructed prison and see their misunderstanding. And occasionally it's also okay to call one out (by pointing out the way by which he/she is making choices and then try to sentimentally blackmail you).
Yet I think it's no sign of love or caring if you willingly share his/her self-inflicted suffering and play such a drama.

[–] cyclgrrl 8 years ago

Thank you for the long and thoughtfully written post.

I don't think it's about any particular gender or any particular situation.

I think that in a good relationship, both parties compromise and try to meet one another in the middle. Decisions get made, renegotiated as necessary, etc.

An a person in the relationship who does something clearly destructive owns it. Things can be readjusted but they still own their actions.

Does this help at all?