Here's the cool thing about marrying a movie geek - it leads to a lot of great conversations about the movies you watch. On Sunday evening, Lady Hatter and I watched david Lean's BRIEF ENCOUNTER for the first time. We both dug it, but we differed on our reaction to Laura and Alec's affair....
Lady: I didn't love it.
Hatter: Why didn't you love it?
Lady: It was frustrating watching it because it felt like the movie was trying to be a romance. But they were romanticizing adultary which I just don't find romantic, especially since she didn't have anything like a mean, abusive husband. It just seemed like we were supposed to take it as a romance when really it was a douche and another douche cheating on their spouses.
Hatter: But they couldn't help it, they each found somebody who they connected with.
Lady: Yeah, that's awesome - except that they both already found the person who they said 'I do' to, and all bets are off at that point.
Hatter: True, but stuff like this happens
Lady: Oh we are so headed for divorce if that's your opinion.
Hatter: I mean to say that the whole thing is sadly romantic.
Lady: That's the problem is that I didn't even find it romantic in a sad way.
Hatter: Not even in a Romeo & Juliet -
Lady: Oh no, no, no you can not compare the two. Romeo and Juliet were two children who had pure love, and the reason that they couldn't be together was because of the hatred between their families. Totally different. These are two people who already fell in love, and they would hurt the shit out of both their spouses.
Hatter: Yeah, well that's where the sad part comes on.
Lady: No! The sad part is that they're assholes. Especially because they weren't even really in love, she was just bored.
Hatter: I don't think so, I think they felt an actual connection to one another, and that's why this thing flared up so quickly and truly for them.
Lady: But that's not love. It's easy to think you're in love with someone you see for five hours at a rate of about an hour a week for four weeks running.
Hatter: You think it's infatuation?
Lady: Yeah. You love someone when you come home and their dirty socks are on the floor and they have bad breath.
Hatter: Is that why you love me?
Lady: Yeah.
Hatter: Wow.
Lady: I love you in spite of those things. You know, it's great when we go out on a date and spend a great day together - that's friggin' awesome. But I still love you at night when you don't do the dishes. That's love. having a couple good dates with a person isn't love because you're only seeing them with their game face on.
Hatter: But I don't think they had their game face on. I think it was just this happenstance where they met each other, and learned who each other was - maybe not the dirty socks side - but they saw this entity, and fell for it.
Lady: She was a bored housewife who got out of the house once a week. And in that time she had to herself, she happened to meet a man who showed her a good time.
Hatter: Good time? He bought her soup! You didn't even find yourself drawn to the story in a sad way? You know, as in here are these two people who are in a situation that is clearly very bad for them, they're setting themselves up to get immensely hurt and hurt the people around them?
Lady: When he said "I have to say it - I love you", all I was thinking was "You fuckin' douchebag". I was sad for everybody else, but not for them. They were two selfish people who decided to have a bit of fun with each other and ignore the fact that there were children at home. Like what was gonna happen?
Hatter: I don't think they thought that far ahead
Lady: Right. And that's selfish.
Hatter: Well she admitted that she was feeling guilty
Lady (mockingly): Oh, I feel guilty! I'm still gonna do it, I'm just gonna feel guilty about it.
hatter: i guess to me, it just didn't seem like the same sort of Ashley Madison, two cheating adults affair. It seemed to be more of two people who shared a genuine connection.
Lady: But to me, that's a worse type of adultery than if they'd just gone and shacked up. To have an emotional affair is way worse. that's the worst way to cheat on someone you've committed your life to.
Hatter: So you didn't like the movie?
Lady: It's not that I didn't like the movie, it's that you're asking me if I thought it was romantic. I'm saying that it was a good movie about two idiots who decided to forsake their families. It's not a tragedy in the way that Romeo & Juliet is a tragedy. You comparing it to Romeo & Juliet however...that's a tragedy.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Something to Talk About (Mad Hatter & Lady Hatter Discuss BRIEF ENCOUNTER)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I'm certain now that I love Lady Hatter.
"It just seemed like we were supposed to take it as a romance when really it was a douche and another douche cheating on their spouses."
Any woman that calls people douches is a gem in my book. Also, I agree I have a real problem with adultery in films where there isn't a good reason for it. As awkward as it was in Little Children, I understood both the people feeling miserable, but even then neither of them were heroes. Lady Hatters argument I side with. People often mistaken infatuation or lust for love, especially when they are obviously searching for something to fill a void they don't understand.
I guess romance is subjective, but this doesn't sound romantic at all. More like cringe-worthy.
Easily one of my favorite posts of the year.
"It just seemed like we were supposed to take it as a romance when really it was a douche and another douche cheating on their spouses."
This is what movie buff couples watching films leads to and it's great.
This post makes me want to watch "Brief Encounter" right this instant. Suffice it to say, I just moved the film up drastically in my Netflix queue.
@ Heather... Actually you'd REALLY love her because that's usually her negative adjective of choice (I actually edited a few out because I thought she was starting to sound repetitive).
Interesting that you mention LITTLE CHILDREN. At least in that story, one of the two cheaters was stuck in a rather loveless marriage (still not an excuse, but slightly better than two bored people stepping out on their vows).
Hmmm...perhaps LITLLE CHILDREN should be the next film she and I discuss? Married people discuss married movies...sound like a series you might read??
@ Fitz... Many thanks sir. Looks like it's not really one of my most popular posts - maybe too few people have seen this classic to want to read about it.
@ Danny... Questionable morals aside it's quite a stellar film. Prepare yourself for a touch of melodrama, but also for some glorious photography, some moments of eerie melancholy, and a haunting score.
Can't wait to read your thoughts on it.
@Heather... Thanks for the love!! I tend to reach for 'douche' when Hatter's around because he gets offended when I use more colourful language. When talking about these characters I probably would have whipped out 'The Big C' but I was trying to spare my delicate husband.
@Hatter... You should do a post where the two of us discuss MYSTIC RIVER. It would sure be an entertaining read. It might get a bit heated though.
Oh wait...if we did that then I'd have to watch the movie again...nevermind.
-Lady Hatter
Sin Daños a Terseros ~ Ricardo Arjona
(loosely translated with the help of Google)
Just now you burst into my life
With your perfect body and killer eyes
Late as always
Fortune comes
You're going with him
and I'm with her
Playing at being happy
Not waiting for the dream
For fear of being left alone
But we arrived late
And from the moment that
We saw each other
We recognized immediately
But late
Cursed be the hour
That I found what I had dremt of
Late
Dreaming you is missing you
without having you
Trying to invent you
Searching for you through the streets like a madman
Without finding you
And there stands a fool
Who, out of desparation
Confused love with company
And this idiotic fear of ending up old and alone
It makes you choose with the head the decisions of the heart
And I hold nothing against them
I am angry with Time
For putting you next to me
Late
Desire to flee
Of not seeing even your shadow
To think that this was a dream
or a nightmare
That you never appeared
That you never existed
Desire to kiss you
To collide with you
To get closer and tie you up
in an embrace
To look into your eyes
And say welcome
But we arrived late
And from the moment that
We saw each other
We recognized immediately
But late
Maybe in other lives
Perhaps in other deaths
That desire to be near you
That desire to touch you
To approach you and hit you
With a kiss
To escape forever
Without causing pain to third parties.
*Did I mention it was LOOSELY translated?
Anyway ... I'm siding with the Lady here
@ Lady Hatter ~ I love you even more knowing you would have used the big C! Bah-ha-ha-haaaa!!!
I would love to hear what you two think about Mystic River.
@ Lady Hatter... If memory serves, you liked MYSTIC RIVER. I think you're just getting too distracted by your bad memories of Sean Penn's performance. You know me - I'll definitely watch that again.
@ Danger... Please don't encourage her.
@ Fitz... it's my wife you'll have to convince. It's a movie that's amongst my all-time favorites, so I have no qualms watching it and posting my thoughts.
My blushing bride however...
Wish I could read this post, but I think I should probably see the movie first. Will get back to you on this one, but way to marry a movie geek all the same.
Whats fantastic about Brief Encounter is the many different layers.
There is a way of watching it KNOWING that Celia Johnson is an unreliable narrator. Is Trevor Howard just a complete sleeze and she is so desperate to get out? Its all told in flashback so , maybe, she is making something more romantic than it was... he did try and just shack up with her at his buddies place (inspiring THE APARTMENT) so, hardly MR Romance. There is that reading fo the film.
Additionally, like I mentioned on Hatters Matineecast, is how Noel Coward, the writer, is gay. The story is about being in a situation you know you shouldn't be in - you ae attracted to this 'other' person, but cannot get out of which ever situation you are in. IN a time when it was illegal to be gay, it seems more than appropriate ... that and the fact that, following the films release, it has a huge gay following.
I love the film and I think the question you guys need to ask yourself is 'what if' someone strikes a passionate impulse you have never felt before ... do you ignore it?... or do you follow it?
Simon
www.screeninsight.com
@ Aiden... Bump it up your to-see list. It's truly a beautiful film. Then of course, c'mon back and read our converstaion.
For what it's worth, we aren't all that spoilery in this conversation, but we do tip some details that would ruin a concept this elegantly simple.
@ Simon... Bloody hell - reading the points you raise almost make me want to go back and have this conversation over again.
As for the question of ignoring or following, I think if you stew on what I say versus what Lady Hatter says, you can see where we each fall on that question.
Great idea on the married people movie discussion!
I agree about Little Children. There was some empathy there, the characters weren't completely without motivation beyond doucheness (in honor of Lady Hatter) but at the same time, it wasn't a situation that couldn't have been easily remedied, by say......a divorce? Nonetheless it does bring up a lot of questions and is more realistic than not, which is what made it a compelling though uncomfortable watch.
And Lady Hatter...........The "Eff" bomb is by far my biggest foul language go-to, which some people just loathe. I think it's a fancy word, but douche sums things up pretty well too!
@ Heather... There will be more, not completely certain as to when though.
I don't know why the characters in LITTLE CHILDREN and BRIEF ENCOUNTER don't think about divorce instead of just momentarily stepping out on their vows. Perhaps because they all know they're antsy, but they're likewise too chickenshit to take such a permanent step.
Lady Hatter loves her some f-bomb. I've never found that part of her vocab all that offensive though - probably because I use it a lot too.
Short of agreeing with LH about the usage of the word "douche" (even better when paired with "bag"), I can't side with her much in that conversation.
Not that I'm fine with adultery or anything like that, but I think you have to take the film a bit in with the context of its time. LH's assumption is that these people fell in love with their current spouses and got married - it's been awhile since I've seen the film, but I believe that these marriages could very well have been the kind that were done to preserve social standings or simply because "it was time". Not that it wholly excuses their behaviour, but it puts a different spin on things - if you're pushed into a loveless marriage from the beginning, what if you then found what you believed to be true love? Maybe it was indeed only infatuation, but maybe it felt a lot more like love to them than anything they've felt with their current spouses.
I prefer to read the film that way since it allows you to enjoy their stolen moments even when you know where it must end up. Also, Lean beautifully realizes some of the scenes.
Having said all that, I can understand LH's reactions if she immediately saw the characters in that light. Once you feel that a protagonist is a douche, it's hard to go back...
@ Bob... I'm starting to enjoy it when we agree.
I have no idea why neither Lady Hatter nor I thought about the fact that these people were in their marriages for reasons other than love, but now that you point it out - it does make sense. Unfortunately though, it's not on the screen. Neither one of them makes any mention of marrying young, or being married off by thier parents. It's entirely possible...and actually makes a lot of sense...but it should have at the very least been implied.
Perhaps I was thinking that in the back of my brain...which likewise led me to my stance in the argument.
"I'm starting to enjoy it when we agree."
Don't get used to it bub. B-)
I haven't seen the film for quite a while, so perhaps I'm mistaken, but I certainly got the impression (at least with her) that the marriage was not one of love.
Even if it was initially, again given the times, divorce may not have been an easy option. If she had fallen out of love, her husband may still not have granted it to her. I expect there were far fewer options for someone in her position.
@ Bob... It might not be a marriage of love, but it doesn't seem like one that was forced.
She has children, a nice house, and a husband who is at least halfway attentive. She seems stuck in a rut more than she seems genuinely unhappy.
I think I caught all of that on some level which was why I wasn't angered or disgusted by this extramarital story.
(PS - Surprised you haven't joined in the fray on the "Call & Answer" post)
according to the movies that i'm familiar with, this is the point where you go out and hire a stud muffin who will generate a fling with your spouse, just to test her true resolve or to prove your point?
@ Joe... (Welcome to The Matinee!) Nope. The people at the centre of this story aren't that manipulative. They're too busy enjoying this fleeting moment of bliss to actually take the time to putting the wheels in motion that will make it a permanent thing.
Post a Comment