MovieChat Forums > The Goodbye Girl (1977) Discussion > Reality Check: Paula McFadden Is TROUBLE

Reality Check: Paula McFadden Is TROUBLE

posted 18 years ago by gnolti
21 replies | jump to latest

I'm going to get flamed for this. What's more, I own this film and have always enjoyed it, but it finally dawned on me: Does Elliot Garfield know what he is getting into by marrying Paula?

I mean, let's think about it. Here is a single mother who moved in with a married man, knowing (as he says in the Dear Paula letter) that "this was never going to be permanent," and then quit her job. Her ex split -- not very graciously, I'll admit, but the fact is, he split. He may have had good reasons. And then later, in one of the movie's worst lines, Paula tells Elliot that she's "going to be spending YOUR money" decorating the apartment.

GG has got to be the ultimate anti- or non-feminist film of the 70s (and I don't usually care about things like that). Paula McFadden comes off as a housewife-wannabe with no real sense of self-reliance. I mean, OK, so she's out of shape to keep dancing like she used to; why not try TEACHING dancing? Or reinventing herself in another profession? What's so noble about living from one male meal ticket to another?

"Look what you did to my shirt."

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gnolti 18 years ago

I'm a guy who's been around.

Still love GG, though.

1.) The Lord loves a working man.
2.) Don't trust whitey.

[–] JoeLoebner 18 years ago

Oh geez, i hope im calling the right number, lol.

[–] golden_muse 12 years ago

"Shes a user......period, most women are....."

Hey, as a hardworking single woman who makes her own money, I can tell you that in the past year at least two guys have tried to 'romance scam' me out of everything I had. It's not just women, trust me.

I really love this movie, but had mixed feelings about Paula's character--I definitely disagreed with her moving in with a married man, especially with her daughter in tow, and giving up her livelihood for a relationship that was iffy from the beginning. On the other hand you can tell she adored her daughter, and I really had to hand it to her when she got up on that stage to audition with women who were 10 years younger than her. And when she said, "You need me to be younger, I'll work on that," I howled--definitely one of the great feminist film lines of all time!

Discover my world of cutting edge women's romantic fiction
http://goldenmuse.tripod.com

[–] Starcat Zeppo 18 years ago

I mean, OK, so she's out of shape to keep dancing like she used to; why not try TEACHING dancing? Or reinventing herself in another profession? What's so noble about living from one male meal ticket to another?

You're applying modern thinking to a movie set decades ago. There isn't anything "noble" about it, and at the start of the movie she was hell bent on doing it on her own which is why she was trying to ward off the attraction, but "love won". Why is that so hard to understand? And you know what? People DO need one another. While there might be nothing noble in living from "meal ticket to meal ticket", there's also nothing noble in living alone just to PROVE you can and denying love when it's smack dab in your face.

[–] Isaac5855 17 years ago

Paula definitely is damaged goods and I can't say with certainty that Elliott is fully aware of how damaged she is, but by the end of the film, he really seems to love her, warts and all, otherwise he wouldn't have asked her to go on location with him.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

At least he knows who she is, what is she like, she hides nothing. When you marry a woman, it is very likely that you'll have to discover such things later, too much later... So it is safer to marry a girl/woman like Paula, you know what you can expect in advance and won't have to regret the rest of your life. And, seeing what women of today are like, it seems that getting Paula could be more a jackpot than trouble.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I completely agree and apologize if it sounded sexist. Not meant to be that way at all. I was only following the paths of the story and thread, and in this particular case it was woman we've been talking about. It could be opposite if we talked about some other movie.

[–] cconnelly1 17 years ago

I agree that Paula's character seems dated by today's standards. Don't get me wrong-I Love the Goodbye Girl and I guess for its day it was considered feminist and empowering (since at the end Paula tells Elliot he can leave and for the first time she won't fall to pieces). But things like Paula saying she's going to be spending his money on the apartment; and the general feeling that all energy in the family will now be devoted to Elliot achieving his personal goals of becoming an actor, and Paula and her daughter will happily, gratefully be along for the ride as long as he allows them the privilege, seem dated to me and make Paula seem more like a big wuss than a feminist.

Still-a great movie and one I can't help watching whenever it's on.

[–] GreatPersonality 16 years ago

Like other posters here, I qualify my criticisms by saying I love this movie and know it well. But...as both the movie and I aged, I came to realize that Paula's a terrible mother. What kind of woman shacks up with men so quickly when she has a young daughter? As a teenager in the 70s, I was innocent so the movie seemed innocent. But I'm not so innocent anymore, and she doesn't really know these men. That kind of casual lifestyle attracts creeps, and she could put her daughter in some dangerous situations from which it could be difficult to extricate herself. Bad, bad mother. Selfish, too. She just got very lucky when Richard Dreyfuss knocked on her door.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jkholman 12 years ago

"...seem dated to me and make Paula seem more like a big wuss than a feminist."

Even for 1977, Marsha Mason's character was not a feminist.

- JKHolman

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

I love this movie, but (<----- I think that intro is required in this thread) Paula has all the warning signs of a fatal attraction. She cannot stand to be alone, yet once she's with someone, she's extremely neurotic and controlling. I know her character was written this way, but I also think Marsha Mason overplayed her. If I were Elliot, I would have forfeited my deposit and lease and said, "Goodbye, girl."

[–] bluestocking-7 15 years ago

I have always enjoyed this movie. I wished I saw the Broadway musical with Martin Short and Bernadette Peters. The Zippel-Hamlisch score is delightfully sassy.

BUT... as a female, I did cringe at the character of Paula McFadden if I really thought about the situation. And it didn't help that I've just recently seen Chapter Two (1979) and Only When I Laugh (1981) - also by Neil Simon and featuring 2 of Mason's 4 Oscar-nominated performances. I hate the neediness and vulnerability of the three characters she played.

NOW... I love Mason as the banjo-playing, leopard prints-wearing, multi-divorced Sherry Dempsey whom Martin Crane almost married in Frasier so it's not the actress that I don't like.

I also don't like the line on spending Elliot's money on the apartment.

And though Lucy's precociousness is part of the charm of the movie, I could do without this bit.

Elliot: You do know your daughter has a crush on me?
Paula: Yes, I've noticed.
Elliot: How do you feel about that, Mom?
Paula: Well, not to take away from your personal charm... she had one on Tony, too.
Elliot: They're fickle at 10.
Paula: And at 6 she had one on her father.

Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com

[–] gnolti 15 years ago

Mason's best performance is the one nobody talks about anymore, in Cinderella Liberty (1973). Not only was it her first Oscar nom, it was her only known portrayal of a type utterly different from the one you describe -- independent, wise, the opposite of needy.

There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

[–] jane_bront 14 years ago

I think Paula was a character written in an era when having a man was more important for a woman than today. I don't think she was as much of a user as the men who obviously used her. But it's true that she didn't pick her men well. However, she seemed to have something decent with Elliot and since I doubt he'd use her like the others, she most likely was good to him too. She wasn't trouble; she just picked the wrong men. Fortunately, her daughter seemed pretty mature and able to survive Paula's previous choices.

~"Chris, am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."

[–] eadaoin7 12 years ago

Well, it's really not so different in context from any rom-coms of today. Except it's usually a partying goony guy who falls for the cutie who either has a heart of gold or has a friend who has a heart of gold, and sweet lovin' hijinx ensue. It's the standard formula. Two mismatched people inexplicably beat the odds to Happily Ever After Land. Still in operation today.

I guess what some of the gripes are about are a reflection of the times; and sadly back then, men got way more jobs than women because in a patriarchal society men were still seen as sole breadwinners. My mother raised us as a single parent and scrambled for years to try and get a secure job. It was tough, but there were prejudices in place. Actually they still exist--they're just ignorantly denied or masked as something else. At least back then they told you the truth about things...

And I can say that in the film, Elliot didn't really seem to mind - "Mama Bear has done the cave real nice." Let's face it - in a really good, cozy relationship both parties do have a nesting instinct. I think it's cute.

[–] BigWhiskers 12 years ago

Well, Neil Simon did write her that way . It's hard to have any sympathy for a woman who deals in monetary values. She comes across as a b**** more often than not. Elliot had a choice though but i guess beggars cant be choosers

"So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey"

[–] ec1979 12 years ago

She got screwed by the last bf....he ran out on her WITH ALL HER MONEY. And she's trying to make it, she's just not very good at it. The character is supposed to have been left and used repeatedly. With Elliot, she gets lucky in that she falls in love with a guy that 1.) loves her back, for real, and 2.) is not a loser. So she cashes in a little, but I think she legitimately wants to commit to him. She is trusting by nature, which, in the past, has gotten her nothing but heartbreak, but this time, she's lucky in love. And he loves her...you can't control who you fall in love with, even if she's "damaged goods".

[–] davidwile 12 years ago

Hey folks,

I just saw this film for the first time today. While I have no idea how or why I never saw it in 1977, I really am not sure how I feel about the film after seeing it today. In some ways, it was fun to watch Dreyfuss and Mason, but I have to say that had I been Elliot, I would have run from Paula as quickly as possible. My wife and I have been married since 1964, and observing Paula sure did make me appreciate my wife.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile