I can't even begin to tell you how many problems I have with this film.. - The Goodbye Girl (1977) Discussion

[–] Ozymandias-King-of-Kings 18 years ago

The first thing that struck me when watching this film was , what an irresponsible mother Marsha Mason's character was. She shouldn't have had the daughter if she wanted to continue dancing. Having children in the dance world is a major no-no. It really destroys the figure.

Ok, going from memory here: She had her daughter while in a previous marriage. She returned to dancing when she was left by her husband. I believe this is mentioned when she aks why the other dancer is being so nice to her, and she says "We're sorta related", and explains that she dated her ex-husband. Paula wasn't irresponsible, she was unlucky, hence "The Goodbye Girl".

The second thing that struck me was how could she dare be living with a man , out-of-wedlock , and exposing her daughter to that kind of lifestyle?

What kind of "lifestyle"? She met another man sometime after her husband had left her, and once they'd developed a relationship together she moved in with him, presumably to create a more stable 'family' environment and to help pay the bills. When we first meet Paula it's clear that the relationship (to her) is going very well, as they are all moving to another state together.

How could she allow herself to financially depend on a man that is not committed to her? She has a child!

Perhaps she thought he was committed to her? The relationship seems to have been going on for a long time, as she had given up dancing again some time in the past. He then - out of the blue - dumps her. Hence, again, the title "The Goodbye Girl".

The man was married! She should've known , they never leave their wives.

Who was, Tony, the actor that leaves her at the start? He was seperated from his wife, and as Paula said, he "Couldn't get a divorce". Plus Elliot said he called an actress who lived with Tony before Paula, judging by that, he hadn't been with his wife for many years. So the issue of them "Never leaving their wives" is kind of moot, as he already had.

And I found it very startling , even though the scene was played innocently , that she allowed Drefuss' character to rub on her child and then fall asleep in the bed with her. Maybe I feel more strongly about this because times have changed , but I still think that was wrong of her to allow that.

Why was that "startling"? He rubbed her stomach because she had stomach ache, and then fell asleep - all with Paula in the room. You think it was wrong of her to "allow" it? Why? There was nothing sexual about it, which is what you're implying. If you think there was, that says more about you than the film.

First of all , Marsha Mason's character was only 33 , yet Simon hat her hobbling from scene to scene like she was 100! Thirty-three years old is not old in the dance community! I know this for a fact. There are dancers 50 and upwards still dancing in Broadway shows , still doing the difficult choreography and routines.There are even principal dancers in ballet companies in their 50's!

First of all, "Simon" didn't have her doing that, that's down to Direction more than writing. Second, she was behaving like someone who was out of shape. It's made clear that she hasn't danced for at least a year or two, and that's all it takes for muscles to tighten, stamina to drop, and to find the rigours of training exhausting (she was, after all, 33 not 23), especially when she had to literally jump back in with no preperation because she had been abandoned.

So , I think Marsha Mason's character in this film was just lazy.

Funny, I think her character was spot on. But then Neil Simon did write it for her, based on her, while being married to her.

You clearly didn't like the film that much, which is fair enough, but the reasons you gave don't really add up. She hadn't been irresponsible in her life before the events in the film, she had been unlucky. She was, after all, "The Goodbye Girl". I suggest you re-watch it sometime, with the perspective that the Paula character was an open-hearted woman who'd been given a bum deal by the men in her life prior to Elliot turning up at the door.

reply

[–] gnolti 18 years ago

I started a thread on some of these same topics below:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076095/board/thread/67607932

That said, I'll add my two cents' worth by saying that 1.) I can't help but like this film -- it's a fun, sweet picture, second only to Max Dugan Returns (essentially Simon's 1983 rethinking of GG); and 2.) I can't help but dislike Paula McFadden the more I think about her -- even more so after she falls in love than when she's just a run-of-the-mill biatch initially, because she's so clearly falling into the same romantic patterns that have gotten her in trouble bfore, only THIS time, she's dragging poor, callow Elliot Garfield into her world. I foresee a rocky road ahead of them. She's not called the "goodbye girl" for nothing.

This is not a psychotic episode. This is a cleansing moment of clarity.

reply

[–] Ozymandias-King-of-Kings 18 years ago

I saw that thread, and I see what you're saying: She's had a series of failed relationships and the one common link is her. But it is possible to believe that she's basically a nice person who's been treated unfairly. That's why she balks at the idea of another relationship - especially so soon after the last one ended. Elliot can see she's just a sucker under that tough exterior, he bulldozes her with romance, and yep - it works, she caves again, falling into the same old trap. But that's the whole premise of the film: Is this just another disaster? Paula's fallen again, but is Elliot going to take advantage of it... or is he going to treat her right? She isn't "The Goodbye Girl" because she leaves people, but because they leave her. I think she just wants a stable relationship. The future that you see as rocky, I think depends more on Elliot than her, and the audience are asked to decide at the end: Will it work out? Is he really as nice as he seems?

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 18 years ago

Hi gnolti ,

I don't find her character to be extremely unlikeable , it's just that her gullibility and irresponsibility are maddening.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

I agree that the character of Paula is pretty hard to like when she and Elliott first meet but Elliott is clearly different from the other men in Paula's past and I like to think that Elliott's love for Paula softens her.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 18 years ago

Hi Ozymandias-King-of-Kings ,

First off , allow me to say that I have nothing against Neil Simon or Marsha Mason , I'm referring to the writing , direction , and characters.

Ok, going from memory here: She had her daughter while in a previous marriage. She returned to dancing when she was left by her husband. I believe this is mentioned when she aks why the other dancer is being so nice to her, and she says "We're sorta related", and explains that she dated her ex-husband. Paula wasn't irresponsible, she was unlucky, hence "The Goodbye Girl".

Ok , I see your point with this.

What kind of "lifestyle"? She met another man sometime after her husband had left her, and once they'd developed a relationship together she moved in with him, presumably to create a more stable 'family' environment and to help pay the bills. When we first meet Paula it's clear that the relationship (to her) is going very well, as they are all moving to another state together.

I stand by what I said earlier regarding this. It wasn't a very wholesome atmosphere in which to raise her child. That's what's called "shacking up."
One can tell early on in a relationship if the man is going to be committed.
She should also have known that many men are serially unfaithful , especially since her husband "dumped" her. It's just not very responsible thinking for someone that has a child. I think she was thinking more of herself than for her child.

Perhaps she thought he was committed to her? The relationship seems to have been going on for a long time, as she had given up dancing again some time in the past. He then - out of the blue - dumps her. Hence, again, the title "The Goodbye Girl".

No , "committed"= married. Anything less is non-committal.

Who was, Tony, the actor that leaves her at the start? He was seperated from his wife, and as Paula said, he "Couldn't get a divorce". Plus Elliot said he called an actress who lived with Tony before Paula, judging by that, he hadn't been with his wife for many years. So the issue of them "Never leaving their wives" is kind of moot, as he already had.

It means very little that he was "seperated" from his wife , they still , almost always , go back to their wives. Sure he could've gotten a divorce , that's such a crock. He was a "player" and was just trying to get with as many women as he could. It's plain as day.

Why was that "startling"? He rubbed her stomach because she had stomach ache, and then fell asleep - all with Paula in the room. You think it was wrong of her to "allow" it? Why? There was nothing sexual about it, which is what you're implying. If you think there was, that says more about you than the film.

It was indeed startling , but I said that is was played innocently.
I just think it's yet another irresponsible thing that Marsha Mason's character does in the film. Again , I think my strong opinion about this matter is due to the times that we live in today , but still...she shouldn't have allowed it to happen.
I found it very sweet when , despite the fact that he was worried and stressed-out , after he learned she was sick he immediately became concerned about her and tried to help. I'm just saying , I don't think she should've allowed him to rub on her and sleep in the bed with her.
And as far as you saying that it "says more about me than the film" , you do not know me , please do not be assuming things about me or try to psychoanalyze me via imdb. lol

First of all, "Simon" didn't have her doing that, that's down to Direction more than writing. Second, she was behaving like someone who was out of shape. It's made clear that she hasn't danced for at least a year or two, and that's all it takes for muscles to tighten, stamina to drop, and to find the rigours of training exhausting (she was, after all, 33 not 23), especially when she had to literally jump back in with no preperation because she had been abandoned.

Ok , I will say that it's possible that she seemed to be hobbling around the set because of the direction. I say this only because I have not read Simon's original script/play. However , whomever's direction it was , it was stupid. I can imagine her being out of shape , but she kept using her age as the excuse in the film. Did the director write that part , or did Simon?
Believe me , I understand about re-training the body and rebuilding stamina , but her age was constantly being used as the reason for this in the film , not so much the fact that she'd been out of practice for a while. I call it "ageism" plain and simple.
People who don't really know about things use age as the excuse everytime because they can't explain whatever the real reason is.
In the dance world , there isn't any difference between 23 and 33. It all depends on how well you take care of yourself and how talented you are.
I know a lot of people who are 20 and they dance like one would imagine a 100 year old would dance , and I know a lot of people who are 50 and 60 and they dance like one would imagine a 19 year old would dance.
It all depends. Age is really irrelevent. It's just as incorrect as people talking about the metabolism slowing down and attributing sudden weight gain to aging. There are people in the medical community who have dismissed that "theory" wholeheartedly.
Bottom line , people make too much of a big deal about age.
The film would've been a little bit more positive if they'd just portrayed her as being out-of-shape without adding the whole ageism thing.

You clearly didn't like the film that much, which is fair enough, but the reasons you gave don't really add up. She hadn't been irresponsible in her life before the events in the film, she had been unlucky. She was, after all, "The Goodbye Girl". I suggest you re-watch it sometime, with the perspective that the Paula character was an open-hearted woman who'd been given a bum deal by the men in her life prior to Elliot turning up at the door.

I had a lot of problems with the film , that said , I don't know how different it is from Simon's original writing. I'm assuming they changed some things?
To each his or her own , you don't think she was irresponsible , I do.
I think she was irresponsible for her relationships with men and her lack of financial security for her daughter.
I will re-watch it , I'm not trying to be mean or anything , I'm just discussing the film.

She was treated very badly by men , that's why I think she should've awoke from her slumber of ignorance and not bought into the "bs" that they kept feeding her.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] Ozymandias-King-of-Kings 17 years ago

Ok, I'm not going to pursue this too much further, because people will always feel how they feel about things, and nobody can really be 'talked' into changing their feelings, but anyway...

I stand by what I said earlier regarding this. It wasn't a very wholesome atmosphere in which to raise her child. That's what's called "shacking up."
One can tell early on in a relationship if the man is going to be committed.
She should also have known that many men are serially unfaithful , especially since her husband "dumped" her. It's just not very responsible thinking for someone that has a child. I think she was thinking more of herself than for her child.

That's possible, I think it's open to debate though, since we only get scant information on her previous relationships. It's worth pointing out that Tony (the actor who left at the beginning) wasn't actually unfaithful to her in a romantic/sexual sense, he left because of his career (which probably doesn't feel much better).

No , "committed"= married. Anything less is non-committal.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Emotional intent is more important than a signature on a piece of paper. Many marriages lack commitment, many cohabiting couples are completely committed. I understand your feelings are that marriage = commitment, but to imply that a character in a film is foolish because she doesn't feel the way you do doesn't make sense. The Paula character had been married, and she'd seen it fail, she knew that marriage wasn't a guarantee of commitment.

It means very little that he was "seperated" from his wife , they still , almost always , go back to their wives. Sure he could've gotten a divorce , that's such a crock. He was a "player" and was just trying to get with as many women as he could. It's plain as day.

After years of separation and living apart men "Almost always" go back to their wives? I'd like to see some evidence for that statement. And as for him being able to get a divorce, divorces can last for years if one person is being deliberately obstinate.

It was indeed startling , but I said that is was played innocently.

It was played innocently because it was innocent. There was no other agenda. Frankly, there was nothing whatsoever startling about it. Paula was there the whole time.

I think my strong opinion about this matter is due to the times that we live in today , but still...she shouldn't have allowed it to happen.

What should she have done? Screamed "Don't touch my child you filthy pervert!" What?

I don't think she should've allowed him to rub on her and sleep in the bed with her.

"Rub on her"? You mean to rub her clothed stomach when she had stomach ache? What exactly is wrong with that? And incidentally, he didn't "Sleep in the bed with her", he fell asleep on the bed next to her, while they were both fully clothed.

And as far as you saying that it "says more about me than the film" , you do not know me , please do not be assuming things about me or try to psychoanalyze me via imdb. lol

You can only judge people by what they say on message boards, and what is said does give an indication of what people are like. If you can watch a scene like the stomach ache scene and say that you find it "Startling", suggest that the scene was "Played innocently" as if there was something else going on, and say that you think it was "Wrong of her to allow" her daughters' stomach to be rubbed, that does say something about you whether you like it or not. And it really isn't a question of being psychoanalyzed, when you make statements that drip with personal bias like: "Many men are serially unfaithful" and "They still, almost always, go back to their wives", it doesn't take psychoanalysis to see it.

Ok , I will say that it's possible that she seemed to be hobbling around the set because of the direction. I say this only because I have not read Simon's original script/play. However , whomever's direction it was , it was stupid. I can imagine her being out of shape , but she kept using her age as the excuse in the film. Did the director write that part , or did Simon?
Believe me , I understand about re-training the body and rebuilding stamina , but her age was constantly being used as the reason for this in the film , not so much the fact that she'd been out of practice for a while. I call it "ageism" plain and simple.
People who don't really know about things use age as the excuse everytime because they can't explain whatever the real reason is.
In the dance world , there isn't any difference between 23 and 33. It all depends on how well you take care of yourself and how talented you are.
I know a lot of people who are 20 and they dance like one would imagine a 100 year old would dance , and I know a lot of people who are 50 and 60 and they dance like one would imagine a 19 year old would dance.
It all depends. Age is really irrelevent. It's just as incorrect as people talking about the metabolism slowing down and attributing sudden weight gain to aging. There are people in the medical community who have dismissed that "theory" wholeheartedly.
Bottom line , people make too much of a big deal about age.
The film would've been a little bit more positive if they'd just portrayed her as being out-of-shape without adding the whole ageism thing.

Frankly, she acted exactly like someone out of shape would: Aching, out of breath and tired. Quite what the politics and the ins and outs of the dance world are I have no idea, I'll defer to you on that. But having to start from scratch again in any career at 33 would be hard, especially when the need arose suddenly.

She was treated very badly by men , that's why I think she should've awoke from her slumber of ignorance and not bought into the "bs" that they kept feeding her.

But that was the whole point: A nice guy came along and she gave him a hard time because of what men had done to her in the past, he had to fight to convince her he wasn't like the others. It was a romance. If she'd fallen for him in the first scene, or not fallen for him at all, there'd be no film.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Ok, I'm not going to pursue this too much further, because people will always feel how they feel about things, and nobody can really be 'talked' into changing their feelings

Agreed , to each his or her own. It's incredible how many times I have to remind people , who seem to want to..."challenge" me about my posts, that the whole point of imdb is discussion. People are going to voice their opinions , make their statements , and ask questions. Of course there are going to be disagreements , but it's important to try to be civil and polite. To debate and discuss with decorum. Now , I'm not saying that you haven't been civil and polite , you have , it's just that I don't think it's necessary to try to "judge" me based on my critique of "The Goodbye Girl." I'll get to more about this later.

That's possible, I think it's open to debate though, since we only get scant information on her previous relationships. It's worth pointing out that Tony (the actor who left at the beginning) wasn't actually unfaithful to her in a romantic/sexual sense, he left because of his career (which probably doesn't feel much better).

Sure , debate is possible as to whether the character of "Tony" was unfaithful , but I think the audience is given enough information regarding his wife , and his "other girlfriend" that we hear about via Elliot , to assume that Tony is a bit of a lethario. However , there isn't any debate that it was certainly not a wholesome environment for her daughter.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Emotional intent is more important than a signature on a piece of paper. Many marriages lack commitment, many cohabiting couples are completely committed. I understand your feelings are that marriage = commitment, but to imply that a character in a film is foolish because she doesn't feel the way you do doesn't make sense. The Paula character had been married, and she'd seen it fail, she knew that marriage wasn't a guarantee of commitment.

Well , it's actually both , it's my opinion and it's a fact. People are really using marriage as a scapegoat and blaming it for unhappiness. I say to those people that , there are probably many reason why they feel the way that they do , for instance , they probably got married to young , they probably witnessed many unhappy married couples (for which these reasons are also likely the cause of their unhappiness) , they might not have fully understood the work involved in marriage , they probably married the wrong person , etc.

There are several different reasons why people could feel that marriage isn't that important when it comes to a relationship.

I think people get married too quickly in a relationhip and then regret it later.
It's mistakes that people make that cause many people to disrespect the institution of marriage , not marriage itself.

Think about the vows that one takes before God , that's some serious stuff , if you're not up to it , don't understand it , or are the least bit uncertain , then don't do it!

After years of separation and living apart men "Almost always" go back to their wives? I'd like to see some evidence for that statement. And as for him being able to get a divorce, divorces can last for years if one person is being deliberately obstinate.

It's kind of lazy to think that just because a divorce could take a long time that it's not worth pursuing , the kind of thinking "Oh , let's just live together." (In other words , "I don't respect you enough to put in the time for the divorce so that I can marry you and allow you to live in a respectful environment.)
Men , almost always , go back to their wives for one of the reason that you mentioned , a divorce would be too much trouble. Plus , it might stigmatize the man socially , and some might have children and they erroneously think that "staying together for the children" is the best thing. Puleez. That's been disproven. I could go on , the reasons for such things could be numerous. Ask a guy , more than likely , he would tell you sure he'd cheat on his wife , but would never divorce her. Men think they can have it both ways. Wise up women.

It was played innocently because it was innocent. There was no other agenda. Frankly, there was nothing whatsoever startling about it. Paula was there the whole time.

I said that it was played innocently because it was intended to be innocent. I don't think Elliot was trying to molest her daughter. No. I do think it was wrong of him to fall asleep in the bed with her and for the mother to allow him to do so , as well as rub her stomach/chest area.My point is , as a parent , Marsha Mason's character should've been more responsible and realized that something could've happened , not that it did , but it could've happened. That's my whole point. However , as I also said earlier , times have changed , that was a much more innocent time and perhaps that is why I feel particularly strong about it. It was innocent , it was probably intended to be innocent on the part of Elliot , but I found it alarming that Marsha Mason's character allowed it to happen.

And incidentally, he didn't "Sleep in the bed with her", he fell asleep on the bed next to her, while they were both fully clothed.

Ahem...that's "sleeping in bed with her." Whether or not he accidentally fell asleep or not , he was , in fact , sleeping with her in the bed , they were both in/on the same bed. Marsha Mason's character even said "I can't let you sleep in the same bed as my daughter." , but , again , she made a stupid decision and the audience is left to assume that she allowed them both to sleep together.

You can only judge people by what they say on message boards, and what is said does give an indication of what people are like. If you can watch a scene like the stomach ache scene and say that you find it "Startling", suggest that the scene was "Played innocently" as if there was something else going on, and say that you think it was "Wrong of her to allow" her daughters' stomach to be rubbed, that does say something about you whether you like it or not. And it really isn't a question of being psychoanalyzed, when you make statements that drip with personal bias like: "Many men are serially unfaithful" and "They still, almost always, go back to their wives", it doesn't take psychoanalysis to see it.

It's true that you can gain an understanding of how someone feels about certain things , regarding their posts , but thinking you can judge someone based on a couple of posts is insane. Let me guess , you're probably thinking I'm a bitter ex-wife or someone that has been cheated on because of the way I feel about the character of Tony , right? Wrong.
You probably think I've been molested or assulted based on how I felt about the bedroom scene , right? Wrong.
I'm not trying to get ahead of myself here , but I'm just trying to prove to you that you can't make such assumptions about me based on a couple of posts , nor because of how I feel about the characters in this film.

I think that the film would've worked much better if there wasn't any daughter character. That way , if Marsha Mason's character wanted to keep making stupid choices when it comes to men , fine , go ahead , the girl wouldn't have been exposed to it.

So , that's my two cents.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] Ozymandias-King-of-Kings 17 years ago

Ok, this will be my last post in this discussion, because otherwise we’ll just end up repeating ourselves and going round in circles without purpose. We clearly feel differently about certain things, and it doesn’t look like we’re going to be able to change each others minds.

There are several different reasons why people could feel that marriage isn't that important when it comes to a relationship.

I think people get married too quickly in a relationhip and then regret it later.

It's mistakes that people make that cause many people to disrespect the institution of marriage , not marriage itself.

Think about the vows that one takes before God , that's some serious stuff , if you're not up to it , don't understand it , or are the least bit uncertain , then don't do it!

I don’t disagree with you that people often don’t put enough thought or effort into a marriage, or they underestimate that it’s something that needs taking care of in order to work, rather than just relying on it to take care of them. But that said, I still don’t believe marriage and commitment are the same thing, I believe they can (and should) go together, but they are separate things. People can marry for many different reasons; residency, money, desperation, status etc. However, people will only truly commit to each other for one reason; love. And as for ‘God’, some people don’t believe in a God but they can wed in civil ceremonies, but that also doesn’t make them any more or less committed to each other.

It's kind of lazy to think that just because a divorce could take a long time that it's not worth pursuing , the kind of thinking "Oh , let's just live together." (In other words , "I don't respect you enough to put in the time for the divorce so that I can marry you and allow you to live in a respectful environment.)

I don’t disagree with you there either, I just don’t think there’s enough information to make that assumption one way or the other. My point was, he may have been pursuing a divorce, but when one party is deliberately holding things up it can take years. Paula said he was trying to get one, and I think it was distinctly possible that he was (although not necessarily for her sake) and that it was taking too long so they moved in together anyway. I’m offering that as a plausible counter-view, not as a ‘fact’ about the film.

Men , almost always , go back to their wives for one of the reason that you mentioned , a divorce would be too much trouble. Plus , it might stigmatize the man socially , and some might have children and they erroneously think that "staying together for the children" is the best thing. Puleez. That's been disproven. I could go on , the reasons for such things could be numerous. Ask a guy , more than likely , he would tell you sure he'd cheat on his wife , but would never divorce her. Men think they can have it both ways. Wise up women.

How can you say things like that and then ask not to be judged on what you’ve said? Not only are you making huge generalisations about ‘men’, but they’re overwhelmingly negative! How about I say: “Paula was with Tony because as everyone knows, women like men that treat them badly, if he hadn’t treated her badly she would’ve just ended up cheating on him. She probably cheated on her first husband. Women only want men that treat them badly, they get bored of the ones that don’t”. That isn’t too far from how the last half of your paragraph above reads to me.

Incidentally, I don’t need to ask a guy, I am a guy. I’m not married but I have married friends, and no, they don’t want to cheat on their wives, nor do they want to divorce. Some men cheat, some men don’t. Some men want to cheat, some men don’t. There is no hard and fast rule, so I say wise up yourself and avoid making sweeping judgements about billions of people.

My point is , as a parent , Marsha Mason's character should've been more responsible and realized that something could've happened , not that it did , but it could've happened. That's my whole point. However , as I also said earlier , times have changed , that was a much more innocent time and perhaps that is why I feel particularly strong about it. It was innocent , it was probably intended to be innocent on the part of Elliot , but I found it alarming that Marsha Mason's character allowed it to happen.

I still don’t see it. What “Could’ve happened”? He could molest her? In the context of a romantic comedy? I don’t think so, otherwise it wouldn’t be a romantic comedy. Judging the content of the scene out of the context in which it’s set is a strange thing to do. If you’re saying that in real life something could’ve happened, I would still say that with her there the chance was almost zero, if she wasn’t, then the chance would go up, but not by much. I choose to view the scene in its context and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you choose to set it apart, that’s up to you.

Ahem...that's "sleeping in bed with her." Whether or not he accidentally fell asleep or not , he was , in fact , sleeping with her in the bed , they were both in/on the same bed. Marsha Mason's character even said "I can't let you sleep in the same bed as my daughter." , but , again , she made a stupid decision and the audience is left to assume that she allowed them both to sleep together.

What she said was, “You can’t sleep with my daughter”, which had as much to do with the fact that he was in her place as there being anything inappropriate in his doing so. Also, ‘in’ and ‘on’ are not the same things, people can lie ‘on’ a bed fully clothed and not be ‘in’ bed together. He was lying lengthways at one end of the bed and she was lying across the other end of the bed under a quilt, they were both clothed. He was ‘on’ the bed, and she was ‘in’ the bed, and they weren’t even touching or facing each other. And personally, I never felt that they spent the night that way, I assumed that Paula would’ve let them sleep a while, and then moved him so she could go to bed herself.

It's true that you can gain an understanding of how someone feels about certain things , regarding their posts , but thinking you can judge someone based on a couple of posts is insane. Let me guess , you're probably thinking I'm a bitter ex-wife or someone that has been cheated on because of the way I feel about the character of Tony , right? Wrong.
You probably think I've been molested or assulted based on how I felt about the bedroom scene , right? Wrong.
I'm not trying to get ahead of myself here , but I'm just trying to prove to you that you can't make such assumptions about me based on a couple of posts , nor because of how I feel about the characters in this film.

I didn’t make any assumptions on your marital status, nor on your relationship past, nor did I assume any kind of abuse. I simply saw that you had strong feelings about marriage, relationships, morality, and what is and isn’t socially acceptable to you. None of which required any real digging – you laid it out quite plainly.

I think that the film would've worked much better if there wasn't any daughter character. That way , if Marsha Mason's character wanted to keep making stupid choices when it comes to men , fine , go ahead , the girl wouldn't have been exposed to it.

Without those stupid mistakes, there was no film. She would’ve been happily married and never met Elliot.

Whether or not the film would’ve been as good without the daughter I don’t know. But ultimately, Paula didn’t keep making mistakes, she learned from them and she chose a good guy… ‘And they all lived happily ever after’.

Feel free to reply, but ultimately we both feel how we feel and we’re entitled to that. We’ve aired our opinions and no amount of us repeating them to each other is going to significantly change either of our minds.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Ozymandias-King-Of-Kings ,

I agree , I think we've both very clearly stated how we feel about the characters within the film.

I realize that this is a much beloved film by many , so I can also understand if I might hit a nerve with some posters (not necessarily you) who are fans of the film.

I think this is what the imdb boards are for , discussion and opinions.

Thank you for being polite and civil , even though we disagree on several points regarding the film. A lot of other poster would just start arguing like crazy simply because they disagree.

So , I agree to disagree. lol

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] punugu_bekku 17 years ago

Ent and King, reading your posts and justifications, the way you have put it [in a civilized way as Ent rightly said] I am filled with hope for our species.
Agree to disagree, to me, translates to co-existing in harmony despite differences of opinion. As you can see around the world, that doesnt seem to be happening very well. Anyways, well done.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Hi punugu bekku ,

Thanks.

I only wish more discussions on imdb (and you're right , throughout the world)could be carried out in a civilized manner , without name-calling , etc.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

Ozy and Eng, interesting discussion you're having here. Ozy, I know you've said you're done on this thread, but I just wanted to respond to your a bit.

"It was played innocently because it was innocent. There was no other agenda. Frankly, there was nothing whatsoever startling about it. Paula was there the whole time."

I agree with you, Ozy, much more than Eng, but I will say this: Eng makes a minor point with his whole "played innocently" argument with regard to the rubbing on the bed.

I am the father of an 8-year-old, and to have someone who you really don't want in your house, whom you've met only a few days before, who is a stranger, rubbing your daughter's belly on a bed, well, that ain't cool. The same thought occurred to me when I was watching it last night (at 3am!).

Now granted, this is viewed through the lens of 2007, not 1977, and as a parent, I get Eng's point here more. Today, it might be sligtly irresponsible of Paula to allow this virtual stranger to touch her child in this way, and I stress the word "might." "Might" is because Paula was probably already developing feelings for him, and knew he was at least trustworthy enough not to sexually attack either of them, especially Lucy because she knew that he liked Lucy, and of course, I don't mean that in a sick or perverted way.

My point is this: back then in 1977, eh, nobody cared, nobody would have looked twice at this, so I disagree with Eng in the context of the time period when the film was made. It's just a cute scene.

Edit - I just read Ozy's next post, and I see that we are in total agreement about the scene being viewed in the context of the movie and/or the times.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

It never ceases to amaze (and sadden) me how uptight Americans have become about just about everything since the 1970s.

Sorry, I wasn't listening -- or thinking, whichever one applies.

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

Yeah; see the two posts below. But things do change if you're a parent, y'know. You worry about stupid sh!t like this. What can you do.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Hi jgroub ,

It's a shame that America , the world even , has lost a lot of it's innocence since the 70's. That's why I was saying that , Dreyfuss' character's motives were *probably* innocent , but it's still a situation that I think was irresponsible for Marsha Mason's character to allow. Her overall irresponsibility regarding her child in this film is through the roof.

I understand that this is meant to be a cute film , and I had heard many good things about it , but I was quite surprised when I watched it.

Whether or not it's within or outside of the context of the film , the points are still the same.

I don't know if the child molestation rate has risen since the 70's , or if it's that , at that time , not as many people came out and said they'd been molested , or reported it but, perhaps one of those is the reason , or reasons , why 70's audiences wouldn't have blinked during the bed scene , etc.

I just stand by my statement that it was completely irresponsible on Marsha Mason's character's part.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] jgroub 17 years ago

Ent, we've gotta agree to disagree here. You are looking at this scene through modern eyes. 30 years ago nobody thought nothing of it. It's not that child molestation rates have risen or fallen, it's that people's awareness of it has changed. In the context of the movie and the times, Marsha Mason's actions were reasonable.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

1970's and 2000's are only one generation away. And the way people react it looks as if 1970's were in Roman Empire, or more likely some extinct Martian civilization. Things that were normal for people living in 1970 is forbidden, abnormal, perverted, inadmissible for people today. Well, I was adult in 1977, and I still am (adult and alive) and I don't find myself more or less dangerous for the people around me. But if people in 70's had to live by today rules, they would feel as if been sent to concentration campus.

People in Medieval ages had fears, they had to fear Attila or Mongols, plague, hunger. But they still had joy of life. Today people forgot all the joy and fear everything. The meaning of modern people's life is fear and security. And as they see there is no absolute security they fear more and more, and media feed their fear developing a paranoid society.

There have always been killers, molesters, rapists, burglars, psychopaths. People knew that they existed, but didn't look at everybody around as if he was one of them. They had some level of trusting each other. People today don't trust anybody. They've lost all faith and belief, they see only evil in everyone. Or is it a mirror of their souls they are seeing, are they afraid that others are same as they are? If someone is afraid what he would to in a bed scene mentioned above, it is quite normal that he finds it disturbing.

Children have been in danger from diarrhea and tuberculosis, from Huns and Turks, and many other things we don't even think of today. But they lived a happy childhood, just read all those stories and novels written in former centuries. Today we want to make them secure from those few dangers that still exist, but we warn them over and over and transfer our fear on them and make them afraid from diapers on, perfect members of paranoid community. We make them a little more secure, but destroy all beauty of childhood.

Or if you want to look this way:

Since 1970's many children have been hurt in traffic accidents, many of them died. Cars killed incomparably more children than all criminals, molesters, strangers in the street and psychopaths together. So every responsible parent should prevent their child ever enter a car (including a family one), with no exceptions and under no circumstances should a child appear in a street where cars may be driving. Every parent who lets his child go to school (unless in mountains or islands with no cars) is irresponsible, and if he drives them he is a potential killer.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

To przgzr ,

I actually agree with you , to an extent , about how paranoid our society has become and the whole "culture of fear" thing.

However , society is evolving and , thusly , we try to learn as much as we can to prevent bad things from happening. If it means we're extra cautious , etc. , then I suppose that's the price we're paying.

I don't think there is an easy solution or answer for any of it. I think the best thing to do is trust yourself , your gut , your instincts. Very rarely will one's own instincts lead them in the wrong direction.

Now , there is one thing you said that I do take a little offense to :

They've lost all faith and belief, they see only evil in everyone. Or is it a mirror of their souls they are seeing, are they afraid that others are same as they are? If someone is afraid what he would to in a bed scene mentioned above, it is quite normal that he finds it disturbing.

Who exactly are you referring to with this quote?

It's one thing to disagree with someone's point of view , but it's another thing entirely to , essentially , call someone a predator because they felt a child was in a potentially dangerous situation.

I think that's far too extreme.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I surely don't intend to accuse you or anyone personally. I am talking on the ground of experience I've gained meeting different people on these boards. Even if I had any reason (and I don't) I wouldn't want to insult a person who is able to lead such vivid discussion in such a polite way (rara avis).

But you must admit that it is in human nature to scream against something to hide his participation in it, either on purpose or even not recognizing the problem inside a person him/herself. Gay people (especially in years when it was not so convenient to be gay) often didn't admit to themselves who they really were, and acted as biggest anti-homosexuals (in movies well shown in American Beauty). People who had a bit of Jewish genes in WWII joined nazis, people who had some remote ancestor of different race demanded segregation etc.

Having several kids of my own I can't see anything disturbing in that scene. If mother was not present, the motifs of Dreyfuss' character might be questionable, though nothing more (far from something to accuse). And whatever people do, you can never know their real motifs.

Society might be evolving, but if it keeps this direction, this species that we belong to should better be extinct soon and replaced by machines. The price we are paying is too high. Bad things can never be completely avoided, but goo things can. If we destroy beauty of childhood to all kids, is it worth saving some (and never all!) of them from certain risks? If you want a tumor to stop spreading, you can kill its host, but is it really a benefit for the person? If you want to be sure that no child ever dies because of vaccination complications, you can only cancel all vaccinations; but how many children will then die because of polio and other diseases?

Some people are molesters, but they have existed in 1970's too. Some people were predators during our whole history, not only after 2000. What has (then) changed? Why was a man allowed to help a child only one generation away, and usually even be concerned a good, polite, nice person (better than the rest), and today he is a predator in the first place, and even if he proves he hasn't done anything wrong he is suspect forever more? What does this say about this society that we live in, that we create and give as legacy to our children?

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

przgzr ,

I surely don't intend to accuse you or anyone personally. I am talking on the ground of experience I've gained meeting different people on these boards. Even if I had any reason (and I don't) I wouldn't want to insult a person who is able to lead such vivid discussion in such a polite way (rara avis).

Because you prefaced the quote I'm about to extract with the above extracted statement , I will not take personal offense to it.

But you must admit that it is in human nature to scream against something to hide his participation in it, either on purpose or even not recognizing the problem inside a person him/herself. Gay people (especially in years when it was not so convenient to be gay) often didn't admit to themselves who they really were, and acted as biggest anti-homosexuals (in movies well shown in American Beauty). People who had a bit of Jewish genes in WWII joined nazis, people who had some remote ancestor of different race demanded segregation etc.

I will slightly agree with you about this , but when the other poster said this to me , it was more directed at me personally - which , of course , I took offense.

However , I think it's ludicrous to think that because someone points out something disturbing they themselves are "afflicted" with whatever problem it is that they're seeing in someone else.

Granted , I partly agree with you that that is the case with some people , but certainly not all.

A good question to ask regarding society is , what happens if , because of people thinking that if we point out something disturbing , we ourselves are afflicted by it , we no longer point out disturbing things and culture changes?

I've already seen so many things that were once considered "taboo" become totally accepted and "the norm."

I've said that , I think Dreyfuss' character's motive were probably innocent , but that ,here is a man she barely knows , in her daughter's bedroom , lying on the same bed with her child , rubbing her stomach. That just abounds with "red flags" to me.

And I think why I'm so..."up in arms" about my thread here is that , this movie was touted as such a "cute" film.

Frankly , I didn't see anything that cute about it.

I felt sorry for the girl that she was in all these adult situations all the time.

I know there were child molestors in the 1970's , but , and call me crazy , I think there are more of them out there now.

And , things were a lot more "ideal" and innocent in the 70's.

I've also commented in previous posts that , I'm probably very alarmed by these scenes because I know that such situations could possibly endager a child , and because I'm seeing these scenes through modern eyes.

Just listening to 4 minutes of the news will cause enough heartache to depress anyone.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I'm glad you don't find my words personally because in no way they were meant to be addressed to you. Also, I never said that it refers to majority but, as you agree, to some people.

However, the rest of your long post is rather more repeating you former words than answering my questions. Yes, these questions were general, but I find them important. Maybe more sociological than psychological issue, and not much related to movie, but this discussion has been following its own paths separated from the movie for quite a while already.

The point is, what do we want our world to look like. Do we agree to live and raise our kids behind bars or in bunkers? And I don't accept statements like "we want to be free, we want the world where only good people live and there are no crimes and no bad things happen" because there has never been such a world during history, and maybe won't ever be either; but I also don't agree with moaning that "most people are wicked and dangerous, there is evil behind every corner and we have to sacrifice everything in the world to gain some level of security". Once we stop believing in humanity we become inhuman and even if we don't do anything evil we make the world a bleak, ugly place. Don't tell me that the child grows in loving families when his parents see enemy in every person that walks under their windows - people with so insufficient faith and trust simply can't have enough love to offer it to their kids. You can give only what you have, and if you breed and nourish anger and fear and disbelief in yourself, your kids won't be capable of anything else. It's not enough to declare that you are good and you love them, they become what they see and feel in environment where they grow up. If they see and learn that people are generally not trustworthy...

Now, avoiding to make this a monologue, I'll refer to some of your lines.

I've already seen so many things that were once considered "taboo" become totally accepted and "the norm."

This is true, but I find that those things that were "normal" or at least "tolerated" and then became "the taboo" or "the crime" are more frequent.

Just listening to 4 minutes of the news will cause enough heartache to depress anyone.

This is the core, the heart of your comment, so I won't answer to other statements one by one. We are over-saturated by informations. And these informations are carefully chosen to make us feel uneasy, uncomfortable, scared. Find some old papers - not a year but many decades old - and check the ratio of good and bad news. Unless it was happening in local community, most things like crimes and accidents haven't been even mentioned. I don't know that, when I was a child, I have ever read about a car crash in New Zealand, a bank robbery in Argentina or a serial killer in Nepal. Today, however, someone takes a gun in Wyoming and even if not killing anyone he becomes a headline from Lapland to Tierra del fuego. Buried by so many informations we get a feeling that there have never in history been so many crimes as today. Just think of Medieval ages and all those wandering knights and tribes. Do you think they were all gentle and harmless as in Errol Flynn movies? Or closer to our times... how many people would dare to conquer Oklahoma or Montana (together with their families) as only few generations before they ancestors did?

Not to mention that many today crimes haven't been illegal or talked about few decades ago. Just remember sexual harassing - not recognized as crime back in 60's or 70's but that doesn't mean it didn't exist; today an article about such a case can fill a half of page. Also, people are more rich than decades (or centuries) ago, so when they are plundered it seems much worse than before. Who would care if someone stole corn from peasant's field - but a stolen car needs to be notified.

If you believe media that the world is really that bad, it can make you depressed. I sometimes wonder if this isn't what some people want us to be. If we are too frightened, we may be ready to let the level of freedom and democracy be diminished. And if we are depressed, we will sooner or later become consumers of (usually quite expensive) antidepressive drugs. So as pharmaceutical companies are interested that people believe how dangerous cholesterol is (what is beyond any doubt, but it is doubtful how high should the blood fat be to start treating it with drugs, which are not so harmless), so their profit rises with the number of depressed people.

Maybe it sounds as anachronism to hear Bible tell us not to worry because God will provide us what we need (look at the lilies in the field...), but the culture that is based on worries and paranoia makes me think that Gypsies are the last hope for humankind.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

przgzr ,

Very well said. You've raised many interesting and very thought-provoking questions and points.

I have to agree with you when you say that , by , as a society , becoming so afraid of everything is making us miserable.

But , a really deep question is , "What does one do about it?" , "Is their a balance?"? Surely one doesn't throw caution to the wind and think "Well , the h*ll with it."

I think it's this part that falls between each person's own philosophy about life , and how they want to live it. How much of their freedom they're willing to sacrifice?

I hate to drag politics into it but , I have a very appropriate and fitting metaphor for this.

I have a huge , huge problem with all of the "spying" and surveillance" that the Bush administration has imposed on the American people. The illegal , unconstitutional wiretapping of citizens phones , the excessive need for someone to be identified and present identification nearly at all times, the passport crisis , etc.

I've been saying to people that this country is becoming more and more like East Germany and the Communist Soviet Union. It would not surpise me if I began to see "checkpoints" set up and soldiers asking people for their "papers" upon entering and exiting a grocery store! If that even happened in places like East Germany and the former Soviet Union.
We , the American people , hardly have any rights these days. And , ironically , according to the Bush administration , all of our rights are being taken away to make us more "free."

This is something that I devote a lot of time thinking about. I still say one can never be too careful but , I don't think someone should "criple" themselves with fear. Certainly not.

I think instincts are very important , and just common sense about avoiding dangerous situations.

I'm glad that someone else has noticed that the News has changed over the years. Like you , I never rememeber hearing about such blatant tragedies as I'm hearing about now.

I don't even watch the news.

I mean , there are pros and cons to it. For instance , it's good that we can learn information that might help us , but at the same time I think we have to learn when it's "too much" and turn it off. Again , "balance" comes to mind.

Another thing is , even if you avoid the tv news , it's plastered on the internet when you go to check your e-mail.

It's everywhere and almost unavoidable.

Something has to be wrong that we're becoming such a "medicated" society. I mean , don't get me wrong , I'm certainly no scientoligist , I beleieve there are medications that people need , but I think it's wrong to over-medicate people.

So , it's good that light is being shed on things but , when it gets to be too much I have to turn it off - and I'm the better for it.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I have no need to drag any part of your post because this time I agree completely with you. So I think I'll be shorter than before.

I agree that people should listen to their instincts, in many things including those that led us to the discussion. I guess the mother's character in the movie was led by instinct when she didn't make a big reaction about rubbing stomach (and she had her share of reactions in other situations). She was there, it is not as if a man came out of nowhere and found an unprotected child (as I've said even then we should consider all possibilities and him being a molester is only one among many, but yes, that situation might be suspicious).

The trouble with this way of thinking, and even more acting (police comes first in mind) does protect kids in one way, but harms them in another. They are left alone on themselves more then ever. If you see a disturbed, unhappy child, even if the kids asks your for help or at least a conversation, and you take your time to talk to him, you may lift someone's eyebrow. And if you hold kid's hand or even hug him/her (and he doesn't have anyone else at the moment, or maybe at all to do it, because of poor family relations), you are stepping on a yellow brick road to jail or at least public humiliation and rejection. So, to be on a safe side, most adults will today avoid any touch, and believe me, all humans need a touch, and kids more than adults. And they get lack of it more and more by each new generation. Sometimes just a simple hug may emphasize the words of comfort to a level when a kid (or an adult!) could actually believe that the world is not a hopeless place and his existence is not a complete failure. (One of symptoms and problems for schizophrenics is an improper reaction to touch, they usually avoid to get any because of perceiving it as a threat.)

But the movie mother was living in 70's when touch was not a crime or a threat per se. Of course, there is a huge difference between the kind of touching, and that has always to be kept in mind, and this is where instinct that you mention should be used. But the problem is that instinct is something what we are given by nature, and we are rapidly alienating from nature. I don't mean (only) living in big cities, eating junk food and never seeing a cow. We are leading the life the way someone (that is from another part of your post) tells us to, and we are thinking the way he makes us to, and we have attitudes he wants us to. Sometimes it is called fashion, sometimes it is called law, sometimes they call it logic or common sense, but they want to make us and our minds uniform. If they say touch is baaad, then we accept that is baaad.

What takes me to Orwell and DDR (East Germany) which you took as an example. You made a great point comparing USSR and his satellites to modern western society. They have been becoming more and more similar during more than a decade. I don't doubt that you know how Orwell, who was a socialist, became disappointed and even aghast after visiting Eastern block countries, seeing what "real socialism" really looked like. But that was only part of the horror of his book. Unlike Soviet & co regimes, who didn't care what anybody thinks, including their enemies and their own citizens as well, modern western society went one more, but major step further to Big Brother world of George Orwell: they make their population accept, want, like and ask for this suspension of freedom and democracy. While people behind Iron Curtain used to grumble (when no Party members were present) and there was often some kind of silent resistance, people in USA and their satellites seem to be happy, and if not, there are always brainwashing media who will tell them repeatedly that this is not only the best for them, but this is what they really want (only maybe not completely aware of that).

It is not a coincidence that Big Brother is the name of so popular reality shows. We have to stop thinking that Big Brother is something wrong. Not only that, we have to love him so much and those who are so lucky to get into Big Brother (show) become national stars. And you know how "1984." ends... "He loved Big Brother!" So, how much of instincts do people have after this procedures? When Oprah tells her several billions people audience: "You should be paranoid!" - is it appealing to normal way of thinking? Paranoia is one of the most severe diseases (not only among psychiatric ones), and she urges us to be sick, to suffer a condition that endangers bout ourselves and everybody around us. So much about the normal world that we live in.

Over-medication, over-information, over... don't you see how successful they are? Even I sound paranoid to myself!

reply

[–] joependleton78 10 years ago

Entgegengelaufen...

First of all Ent...I think you're completely off the mark if you think there was anything wrong with what anyone did in that bedroom scene. "Elliot was wrong to have fallen asleep"???? He was exhausted from rehearsing Richard III night after night. And Paula did not act irresponsibly as a parent for letting Eliot rub Lucy's stomach. It was as clear as day that he genuinely felt bad for Lucy and wanted to help her. And I agree with Ozy that Paula didn't let them sleep together all night.

But you (and even Ozy) are missing one very important element of the story and of the dynamic between Paula and Elliot. The last time they spoke to each other, Elliot read her the riot act about how she was acting towards him and that really made an impact on Paula. Did you not notice the stunned reaction on her face when he stormed out of the room? The "bicarbonate/bedroom" scene was a direct answer to that scene and an obvious attempt, on Paula's part, to treat Elliot with the kindness that he asked her to show him. She came to trust him after his tirade and that was the turning point of their relationship and of the whole film.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

Who was, Tony, the actor that leaves her at the start? He was seperated from his wife, and as Paula said, he "Couldn't get a divorce". Plus Elliot said he called an actress who lived with Tony before Paula, judging by that, he hadn't been with his wife for many years. So the issue of them "Never leaving their wives" is kind of moot, as he already had.

Tony DeForrest was the actor who Paula was living with at the beginning of the film who got the part in the Bartelucci film, sublet the apartment to Elliott, and left for Italy without informing Paula that he sublet the apartnebt. The woman who Elliott spoke to was someone Tony was with between his wife and Paula and no, Tony never divorced his wife.

reply

[–] fuzzyblanket 17 years ago

I just have to say that I agree with the comment about the inappropriate scene where Dreyfuss is rubbing Lucy's stomache and then falls asleep in bed with her. The mother barely knew the man enough to trust him with her child (even though he appeared to be a decent person and the gesture innocent). Not only that, but I was also bothered by the fact that she just let him move in that same night when he came pounding on her door, despite the fact that she was so insistent before hand that he leave. It was all completly unbelievable. And to say that someone has issues because they saw the belly rub as inappropriate is ridiculous. Granted, maybe its just a sign of the times (that would never make the screen now a days unless it was the girl's father), and times have definetly changed. Aside from all that, I thought this movie was quite bad (particularly Marsha Mason's OVER acting)and was very disappointed, now that I finally got around to seeing it (I was a little girl when it was released). Anyways, just wanted to comment that I had the same reactions to this film.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Hi fuzzyblanket ,

Thanks.

Marsha Mason's character's irresponsibility just seems so obvious , I can't understand why most of the other posters don't see it.

In fact , I think I watched some of those scenes with my mouth agape in astonishment. lol

I mean , couldn't Marsha MAson's character have had the sense to rub her daughter's stomach.lol Did she need some man to teach her how to do that? Bizarre.

You're right , we wouldn't see a scene like this in a film today , it would stick out like a sore thumb.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

Funny, I think her character was spot on. But then Neil Simon did write it for her, based on her, while being married to her.

Are you sure you're not confusing this film with CHAPTER TWO? That's really the film where Marsha Mason basically plays herself.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Isaac5855 ,

I haven't seen "Chapter Two."

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

Then you need to see it, because that's the film where Mason really plays herself. Paula McFadden and Elliott Garfield are completely fictional characters. CHAPTER TWO is a fictionalized account of the real-life relationship between Neil Simon and Marsha Mason.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Isaac5855 ,

Thank you for telling me about "Chapter Two" , I will check that out.

Quite honestly , I never knew that MArsha Mason and Neil Simon were married until I began this thread and people mentioned it in their posts.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

CHAPTER TWO was a play first...it starred Judd Hirsch and Anita Gillette on Broadway...James Caan and Marsha Mason star in the film version, which isn't nearly as good as the play (they try to expand the play for the movie and it comes out making the movie WAY too long) but it received some positive reviews and Mason did receive a Best Actress Oscar nomination.

reply

[–] Moon_and_New_York_City 15 years ago

That reminds me, I have got to buy some cheese.

"the best that you can do is fall in love"

reply

[–] fuzzyblanket 17 years ago

I just have to say that I agree with the comment about the inappropriate scene where Dreyfuss is rubbing Lucy's stomache and then falls asleep in bed with her. The mother barely knew the man enough to trust him with her child (even though he appeared to be a decent person and the gesture innocent). Not only that, but I was also bothered by the fact that she just let him move in that same night when he came pounding on her door, despite the fact that she was so insistent before hand that he leave. It was all completly unbelievable. And to say that someone has issues because they saw the belly rub as inappropriate is ridiculous. Granted, maybe its just a sign of the times (that would never make the screen now a days unless it was the girl's father), and times have definetly changed. Aside from all that, I thought this movie was quite bad (particularly Marsha Mason's OVER acting)and was very disappointed, now that I finally got around to seeing it (I was a little girl when it was released). Anyways, just wanted to comment that I had the same reactions to this film.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

...or hurt in any other way, or sick, vomiting etc, I'll pretend I haven't seen it and leave it to bleed or lie in the street. And God save me especially if the wound or ache is someone near chest or in inguinal region... Because if anyone is so careless, stupid and so irresponsible to try to help a child and to decrease its pain, the least he can expect is to be hit by a club and be sent to jail.

reply

[–] tomtkh 17 years ago

...or hurt in any other way, or sick, vomiting etc, I'll pretend I haven't seen it and leave it to bleed or lie in the street. And God save me especially if the wound or ache is someone near chest or in inguinal region... Because if anyone is so careless, stupid and so irresponsible to try to help a child and to decrease its pain, the least he can expect is to be hit by a club and be sent to jail.

LOL...good posting. I'm glad to see people making fun of these IDIOTS!

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

Hey tomtkh ,

Then get away from "these idiots" and go find yourself another board where you can bash religion.

You're not contributing anything to this discussion , you're just trying to provoke people and start an all out argument.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] tomtkh 17 years ago

Entgegengelaufen <--- WHAT does this mean anyway? A garbled way of hiding oneself I guess!

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

And your (or mine) nicks surely have the depth of ancient philosophers and hide the eternal truth... if any exists (according to you, obviously not).

Regardless of my disagreement with Entgegengelaufen, I can't but notice the same as she did: there is not a single comment related to the topic in your posts.

It is not democratic and polite to demand you to leave the thread, and I won't join those who do it. However, democracy is something that's been developing through centuries, it doesn't fall from heaven (especially to those who don't believe in heaven), and politeness is something a person has to earn. So don't blame those who might answer in a different way than I did.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

tomtkh ,

Have you ever studied German? My screen name is German. I'm not "hiding" myself at all?

Oh , and you never clarified your "get you sued" remark. Please do so.

Please be more clear with your accusations.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] tomtkh 17 years ago

What is means is that when you falsely accuse an adult of a serious crime such as child molestation, that adult can sue you for a LOT of money. You are a part of society, aren't you? How could you not know what I'm talking about?

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

tomtkh ,

Let me explain it to you this way , there is nothing wrong , whatsoever , with me stating that the child was in a *possibly* compromised and dangerous position.

That's not saying that Richard Dreyfuss' character "molested" her. What are you trying to twist and turn here?

My posts are very clear in what I find the "potential" danger to be. It's not just that it was Dreyfuss' character , the point is that , a man was on the little girls bed , rubbing her stomach , and then fell asleep in the bed with her!

That is totally irresponsible of the mother , as is so much more that occurs within the film.

Rest assured , if I see a man doing anything that's the slightest bit innapropriate with a child I will raise awareness about it and intervene.

Sometimes a person has to do the right thing and not let the fact that they might be sued stop them.

If I see a man inappropriately touching a child , you can d*mned well bet I'm going to call 911! As should everyone.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] tomtkh 17 years ago

You are SO strange, I really think that you need a hobby or something!!

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

tomtkh ,

You are the one that's strange.

And , in case you weren't aware of this , imdb is a kind of hobby. It's a place for people to discuss films , etc.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] fuzzyblanket 17 years ago

Huh? What? Your posts make no sense. I understand you're trying to be sarcastic, but it just makes no sense in the context of things. A little over dramatic too. But what ever. Go on with your weird self.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

No matter how much I try, I can't get myself to be half as weird as this world is becoming.

Recently I've read (I can't check the information, but is seemed very likely to be true) that an English priest took photos of a group of kids who were devastating his church, and when he took the photos to police he was arrested for illegal photographing of children.

A pediatrician made a digital rectal examination of a child with pain in stomach. (If you don't know what this examination is or why is it performed check on Google or ask me.) The doctor was under investigation because a mother accused him for touching her daughter.

I think that priest and pediatrician and many other people wouldn't call their experiences a little over dramatic.

Sorry if you see no sense in my post. Please, make me find sense in the world of today. Maybe I'll even become less cynical.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

przgzr ,

Regarding the pediatrician and the "rectal examination" , were the parents informed of this procedure before it was performed? Or were they present whilst it was being performed?

One can never be too careful these days.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I don't know about details, I just read an article in papers. What's even more disturbing for me is the fact that the editor of papers didn't take time to check anything and this story was published; it doesn't matter if charges are dropped later - in our modern world a shadow of suspicion will always stay on a person who is once accused. Forget innocent until proven guilty... in paranoid minds of modern people everyone in suspect even if proven innocent.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

przgzr ,

Well , without knowing the specifics of that particular situation , I can only speculate.

Here is how I feel about it:

I don't know how "dire" or "immediate" the need for that particular examination at that particular moment was. It could've been something that could've been ever so slightly postponed until someone was present whilst the examination was being performed. I don't know if it was an ermergency situation where there was a "blockage" or "obstruction" that made the examination something that needed to "immediately" be performed.
I will just say this , someone else should've been in the room while it was being done , preferably the parent(s).
It's now often the policy in doctor's offices that , if it's a male doctor and a female patient , there is usually a female nurse present at all times to act as a "witness." Now , one could definitely argue where that nurse's allegiance lies. Would she side with the doctor over the patient? Who knows.
So , it's best that the parent(s) are there at all times.

I know of many instances of sexual misconduct and abuse by doctors. It's very sad and frightening , but true.

As I said before , one can never be too careful. We don't have to be paranoid but , we should be very cautious.

I also understand about false allegations and how they can destroy people's lives. It's truly tragic. Hopefully , those "false allegation" situations are in the minority. I would think they are because such trials are very difficult , costly , and time consuming.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

As I don't know the circumstances of the story, I can tell you only what I know. This is a rather small hospital in a city of approximately 50000 inhabitants, with about twice as much people from region that this hospital works for. Also, there are two bigger hospitals within less than 100 km. So I guess there was only 1 pediatrician in a shift. Also, I don't know who brought the girl to hospital, it often happens that kids are taken directly from kindergartens or schools if parents are out of reach, or it might be a neighbor or a relative, and in most of these cases the privacy of the child would be even more disturbed if e.g. some male teacher was in the room. I agree that it is better if a nurse is present, but they have their own work, so if she quits what she does just to stand somewhere as a witness, some other patient might have an objection that she works to slow. And in a small hospital like this there are also not many nurses available.

I wouldn't discuss if the examination was necessary, but as the pain in stomach was the reason for her visit, and as majority of patients live in rather distant villages in mountains or on nearby islands with weak traffic lines, the doctor might have decided to do more checks than usual because it is not easy (or is impossible) for patients to return later if the child's conditions gets worse.

It is sad if people who work children (any profession) have to reduce their work, or have to think about all possible complains, misunderstandings etc instead of working the best they can.

Even if there was a suspicion, the procedure was completely wrong. Even if the examination was not necessary (and it probably was made with a reason, it is only the question was it urgent or not), it is a medical and not police issue. And if medical investigation finds that this doctor is doing things that are not in best interest of the patient, they have legal methods of solving it within their organization, or if it appears to be a repeating "mistake" with doubtful motifs, they can forward investigation to police. And the child would probably be saved from going to police and all the unpleasant and traumatizing procedures for victims. There was no real harm done to the child, because it can happen to everyone of us at any age that we need some medical procedures performed on our bodies. The way parents reacted was as harmful to their daughter as it was to the doctor.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

przgzr ,

Well , I'm going to refrain from commenting ant further about the medical incident because I don't know the "specifics."

But , who really knows what happened between the doctor and the child if no one else was in the room?

I would need to know what happened specifically in order to comment about it.

Do you have a link to the story?

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

No, it was just a few lines article in papers a year or two ago. I just remember it for being so ridiculous. Of course, I can't tell what happened either, I am not taking any side, but I know which side I don't hold - the media that have bitten the story as starving dog and with no delay, confirming or thinking they've thrown it (and one man's destiny) among wolves... or readers.

But I guess that nothing wrong happened in the room because it has been quite a long time since then and there has never appeared a further notice that would let us know if the doctor was formally charged, let alone convicted. If he went to prison, or at least investigation showed something, I have no doubt that editors of papers wouldn't wait a minute to make a headline which would sell the papers to all those good, moral people who feed their souls reading about dirty side of human nature.

reply

[–] tomtkh 17 years ago

This was the most harmless scene, and comments like this that find it "inappropriate" could get you SUED. There is so much ignorance when it comes to what is appropriate or not with children, it's sickening.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

tomtkh ,

Excuse me but , what the h*ll are you talking about "sued"?

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] mikestemple 17 years ago

Completely ignoring your rant about morality. This movie was about real people not Ward and June Cleaver.

I think most people have kids with the best intentions but sometimes it doesnt work out. So give this woman credit for trying to go back to the demanding but better paying world of dancing to MAKE her more independant.

What would you have her do? Move into the shelter? Oh ya thats a nice environment. Shame on you for your thoughtless post.

As far as the dance community it seemed on mark to me.

And at any age your gonna be hobbling around getting back into dancing trim from sitting on your ass trim, but trust me its harder at 30+ than 20 +

my 2 cents

Databyter

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

mikestemple ,

My post was anything but thoughtless.

I seem to have miffed you in someway about the dancing. Am I to take it that you are a dancer?

I am ,and , as such , I am knowledgable from the inside out about dancing.

I have been in the dance world my whole life and know many people of various different ages and experience levels. I know people who've been the principal ballerinas of major ballet companies until their fifties. ANd many modern dancers are going strong in their 70's and 80's. It depends on how well one takes care of oneself. I suppose you've never heard of "real age" compared with numerical age? But beside that , there isn't any difference between someone 30 and 20 in the dance world. The only difference I would see is experience.

Now , it's one thing to say it's difficult for someone who's been "sitting on their ass" for a long time to get back in shape , but age has nothing to do with it.

I never mentioned anything about the character going into a shelter. I think you're trying to provoke me.

What I said was , she was an irresponsible mother by allowing her child to be in "potentially" dangerous situations.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] tomtkh 17 years ago

Postings like this are the reason that I HATE religion! You sound like you are still living in the 1600's. WHO even uses the term "out of wedlock" anymore? That idea is so antiquated that it's pathetic. The characters in this film were very likable, and the way the mother was raising the child was much better than the way most people raise their children today. Keep your Elizabethan Era comments out of these boards, please.

reply

[–] Entgegengelaufen 17 years ago

tomtkh ,

If you don't like my post , why did you respond? Actually , you didn't respond to anything , you just seem to be taking your own issues with religion out on me.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Though I had some serious remarks regarding both your opening post and some discussions you had during first days, and though I can agree with some things that tomtkh wrote (that majority of modern mothers can't get close to this movie mother) I simply can't see what has religion to do with this stuff? It looks as if he uses any chance he can get to attack religion promoting his own ideas in the way I thought was behind us since 1950's in eastern block, for some own reasons that he doesn't want to share with us, using demagogy instead.

If he has anything to say about this matter, there are enough board more suitable. Jesu di Nazareth, Last Temptation of Christ, Passion, Da Vinci Code...

There are some good threads about religion on Mission board. A bit rough and harsh, but not insulting (with some exceptions, there are always some borderline civilized people around) and all-sides extreme and moderate attitudes are present.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

First of all , I usually love Neil Simon's work , but I think he didn't quite hit the mark with this one. I found his portrayal of the dance community to be way off the mark.

The first thing that struck me when watching this film was , what an irresponsible mother Marsha Mason's character was. She shouldn't have had the daughter if she wanted to continue dancing. Having children in the dance world is a major no-no. It really destroys the figure.

I would agree with the inaccuracy regarding the dance community. When that choreographer makes that remark to Paula about "needing them really young" that would have been a moot point IRL because an age restrictino probably would have been part of the audition notice that would have run in BACKSTAGE or VARIETY. Regarding your other point, I have always felt that Paula most likely did not plan her pregnancy combined with the fact that most likely Paula's career probably wasn't going gangbusters because even when she was younger and in better shape, I still suspect Paula wasn't a very good dancer. Not to mention the fact that I also get the impression that even when she was out there full time, that Paula most likely did not care a great deal about her career anyway because it seems like the minute she became involved with Tony, she gave up her career without a second thought.

reply

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

And I found it very startling , even though the scene was played innocently , that she allowed Drefuss' character to rub on her child and then fall asleep in the bed with her.

I have to admit that I found that a little troubling as well...Elliott was still practically a stranger when that happened and letting the guy rub her daughter's tummy like that seemed a little wierd.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tomtkh 14 years ago

LOL "out of wedlock"!! Uh...the rest of us are living in the 21st Century, THIS film was made in the 20th century...and it appears you have a 19th Century mentality!!

reply

[–] joependleton78 10 years ago

That lady (I think it's a lady) is a kook. I'm a parent and a pretty overprotective one at that and I think her comments about the bedroom scene are ludicrous. The bigger point is that these people exist in a Neil Simon Rom Com universe. To overreact to a scene like this is just idiotic. If this scene happened in a much more realistic and less meet-cutey film; one without snappy dialogue and a really charismatic male lead, then maybe I would understand the criticism. I swear, sometimes these threads make me insane.

reply