If my wife, whom I loved dearly, did not love me, secretly aborted my child, and abandoned me for a "safe" life and family, and perhaps most of all, betrayed herself as the woman whom I love and believe in, I would be far more enraged and think even worse thoughts than Edward.
My fantasies against her, melding with my regrets at my own failings, and the pain of negotiating the affront to my masculinity, would perhaps manifest in far worse ways than Edward's sublimation of his experience through his novel.
So, yes, I get it. On a human level, I understand. I watch films. I understand lots about people, or at least I try to.
But all I observed was that from an authorial (or directorial/scriptwriting) perspective--that is, one removed from the narrative of the film--was that bit about the abortion even necessary? Perhaps it helps the story, but really, could it have been handled better, perhaps by using another plot device? An example that comes to mind is Mulholland Drive: in the final scenes, when we see the protagonist's flashbacks that show her growing rage and disintegration, there are mere hints through dinner table conversation that Betty is condescended to by her former lover, which is the only reason she managed to get her bit role in the film, and that another lover has taken her place (indicated through a kiss in passing.) It's the discomfort and humiliation she experiences at the dinner table that resonates with us as the audience, and gives explanation to her later decision to have her former lover killed. But with this film, I just observed that it seemed so out of place (i.e., this soliloquy on gay rights), and then for the screenwriter to also add some bit about abortion as some crude and obvious plot device--a convenient device for us, the audience, to think, oh yeah, well, she definitely sucks. Isn't it a tiny bit ironic that Ford would be so progressive in the sense of having liberal audiences pat themselves on the back for their views on the gays (against the backwards Southern conservatives), and then use ABORTION as a plot device for that SAME audience to revile Susan?
We can think of the obverse of this situation, in the film Elizabeth. There a strong independent woman becomes a monarch after being kept away in a tower by her conspiring half-sister for much of her youth. And she encounters a suitor, played by Vincent Cassel, who is brash, lude, and *gasp* wears women's clothing at a baccanial party. She looks at him contemptuously and we the audience are to receive that plot device (i.e., the cross-dressing) as cultural shorthand indicating that he would make a terrible ruler and suitor because, obviously, he's less of a man. (And only real men are rulers? LOL) So in one fell swoop, it's pushing a feminist agenda, CHALLENGING the notion that women are not suited to the role of leadership, but also RELYING on stereotypes against effeminate men as not truly capable of leadership. This cultural shorthand in the minds in the audience furthers the story, but nevertheless betrays that it's not all as progressive as it's all made out to be.
reply
share
tigerfish50
7 years ago
. . I would be far more enraged and think even worse thoughts than Edward.
Rage is a waste of energy and poisons the angry. After any serious setback, a period of grieving and self-examination is appropriate, before moving on with one's life. This is the prudent course for any person. As far as we know, Edward took his loss like a man and turned his experience into art. According to his note, he felt gratitude toward his ex-spouse for her part in transforming him into a decent author. There's no evidence he harbored any ill-will towards her, apart from a dinner no-show which can be easily explained if one examines the novel's events.
All this barking up the Tree of Revenge is just pursuing red herrings.
reply
share
DHfilmfan
7 years ago
We're talking past each other, but saying the same thing.
Again, I don't see it as a 'revenge' tale, though it could be read that way. If I zoom out all the way, I see it as mostly a postmodern story-in-a-story formal exercise, the subject of which is that tired old yarn of a disintegrated marriage. Who would finance this as a film? Thus, the revenge angle.
That bit about me saying I'd be far more enraged...actually, I probably wouldn't be. This was just more to illustrate that I have emotional depth (and that I'm not some uncritical "women's rights" advocate--in fact, it's precisely these people and their tendencies that I'm drawing attention to). Edward's novel did not have to be revenge; the narrative contents need not have been a metaphor (this is where we get POST-Modern). The manuscript itself, echoed in the fact that the novel Tony and Susan draws attention to itself (is self-conscious) as fiction, was the message. Whatever that says about Edward's character, whether he is vengeful or spiteful or manly or magnanimous, is really beside the point.
reply
share
tigerfish50
7 years ago
. . that tired old yarn of a disintegrated marriage. Who would finance this as a film?
In the right hands, a disintegrating marriage is far from a tired old yarn - see Bergman - tired old yarns are gangster movies, space operas and superhero fairy tales. Since Ford apparently financed the film, it would be him - and since he's already made a film about a man grieving for his dead lover, he clearly isn't interested in making conventional box office fodder. In actuality, NA is an allegory about how it feels to come out the other side of a disintegrated marriage and achieve peace of mind - nothing more.
reply
share
DHfilmfan
7 years ago
I'm just not as sanguine as you when viewing this film's ending--and I've given you my reasons why from the film. Maybe that's just our different lenses.
reply
share