1. Poor Susan (Bergen) is so emotionally torn she cannot force herself to stop jugging two roommates/friends.
2. Bobbie (Margret) becomes the most depressed "hot mess" but insists on finally getting married.
3. Cindy (O'Neal) is rather rude, to Bobbie in one scene, and bitchy in her own right as well as sexually aggressive, even a it of a hypocrite.
And the men were douche bags. What's your point? Quite the double standard you have there.
shareMy point is a clear one that the women are just as bad, in many ways, yet were never called to task for their behavior in this film-as I outlined above in my OP.
shareThe story was told from the male characters' point of view. The women didn't necessarily "get a pass", we just never see if they get any kind of karma because this wasn't really their story. Btw, Cynthia was terrific. Was she supposed to be grateful that this jerk wanted to have sex with her?
shareI agree that the story is told from the male characters´ point of view. This said, the level of depth of the psychological portrayal of all the characters is quite a directorial achievement for Mike Nichols.
Cynthia is indeed terrific and treats Jonathan just the way he deserves. I commend her for living up to her own mind doing what she feels is right, setting up the terms on how she will accept him to pursue her, without allowing him to manipulate her the way we have seen him do with everyone else from the start of the film.
Talking about Cynthia, when Jonathan sees Bobbie laying in bed OD´d and he says to himself about her, ¨very clever but it will not work,¨ as if to say that he will not allow for this to trap him into marrying her; he rushes right out of the bedroom, opens the door of the apartment looking for Cynthia, who has just walked out the door, apparently in a desperate attempt to talk to her. I am reflecting about the reason why he goes after her when she has already set her own terms (he has to come to visit her by himself). Could it be that now that he has seen that Bobbie has tried to trap him into marriage, he feels the urge to be freed from Bobbie and talk to Cynthia to tell her he will leave Bobbie to pursue her? Or is it what some posters´ have said, that Jonathan rushes out to escape from the situation, which is also possible but that was not the impression that I got. It seemed to me that he opens the door looking for Cynthia but this is open to our own conclusions. It´s an open situation. What does everyone else think?
I don't necessarily think that Jonathan started to rush out the door in search of Cynthia. I think he just wanted to run away.
shareSometime has past since my last comments and reflecting over this situation afresh, I think that you are right. Jonathan attempts to run away to liberate himself from the situation in a moment of despair and anger but then his conscience brings him right back in.
Just saw flick for first time last night, so weighing in on an old thread. Also not sure about the OP's premise in the first place. (Forgive me if I get the characters' names wrong.)
Susan (Bergen), at first, begrudgingly gives in to Art Garfunkel's advances, mainly because (it seems) she genuinely likes him at a certain level, and then (to an extent) perhaps feels sorry for him. She only gives in to Jonathan because he is a forceful, manipulative a-hole. Neither behavior, in my opinion, matches the "mindless juggling" (if that was the term) proposed by the OP.
Bobbie plays along with the nature of Jonathan's advances, and he seems fine with their pairing as long as the relationship is at arm's (or another, shorter body part's) length. After she expresses further and deeper interest -- and follows his wishes by quitting her job, trying to be the house-person she had never before been, etc. -- she offers the commitment of marriage, which Jonathan rejects. Again, doesn't seem like behavior which begs for a "free pass".
Lastly, Cindy. She's as much of a "ballbuster" (as Jonathan likes to put it) as *he* is an abuser of the women he beds. Let's face it, she is the female Jonathan! And what's the crime here -- that a woman, in the '70's, is taking control of her own sexuality, and defining her sexual pursuits on her *own* terms, not letting them be dictated to her by a-holes like Jonathan? Hey, I personally wouldn't get caught up in her games, but more power to her for putting J in his place.
A great, yet simultaneously ugly movie; a fantastic analysis of what some of the "true" motivations for personal relationships can sometimes be. I think it shows us what some of the possible outcomes are when particular pairs of people, none of whom can fully be "ideal" or "perfect" (because they are *human*) impose their imperfections upon their partners and upon the partnerships that they, in doing so, create.
I wish we could all create better outcomes for ourselves and those we think/hope we love, but mebbe the best we can do is simply hope for the best that can happen when imperfect beings come together! And hey, in the end, there's no other choice anyway.
Susan (Bergen), at first, begrudgingly gives in to Art Garfunkel's advances, mainly because (it seems) she genuinely likes him at a certain level, and then (to an extent) perhaps feels sorry for him.
After she expresses further and deeper interest -- and follows his wishes by quitting her job, trying to be the house-person she had never before been, etc. -- she offers the commitment of marriage, which Jonathan rejects.
but any realistic viewing of this movie indicates SHE is not held to task for anything she does.OP, you seem to have a particular point of view. I don't think that any character is, per se, "held to task" or "gets a pass". I don't think that's what the movie is about. I think the film is about people, each of whom has their psychological & emotional flaws, and Jonathan (Nicholson) is the most flawed. No matter what, Jonathan will never be satisfied. He is, among other things, a malcontent. share