WHY NO MESSAGE BOARD??? - Another Woman (1988) Discussion

[–] BillHarford 20 years ago

I absoulutely love this film! One of Woody's Best. Every scene is brilliant. Thanks for having the courage to start this post!

reply

[–] rhinestone_sunglasses 20 years ago

for real. this movie rocks.

reply

[–] renot108 20 years ago

I only watched this film for the first time last night even though I bought it last year. I was blown away by it. Absolutely brilliant film. I was so moved by many scenes but the final one really touched me. Highly recommended!

reply

[–] issss 20 years ago

I remember seeing this years ago and although I can't really recall much now, I know it was a great film. Must get this out again soon. Why tv people just repeat the same Woody Allen films all the time drives me bananas (excuse the pun). I wish they'd show his underrated ones like this, or Radio Days.

ps. identify totally when no messages appear for a film you think is great .. I couldn't believe it when recently I checked out 'Heimat' and nothing was on the message board!

When people fail you there's always music and meaning

reply

[–] Kinski_Twist 19 years ago

Yes, this film is fantastic. Fantastically underrated as well (and I hate that word, but how else can one describe it?).

No messages on the Heimat board?! Has the world gone insane! One of the best cinematic achievements ever and not a post!!

reply

[–] Greenteeth 20 years ago

I didn't love it. It was interesting and I respect Woodie for going in this direction. It sort of reminded me of a mix of "Interiors" and "Wild Strawberries." The cinematography was excellent. Was this the one that Nykvist worked on? It has sort of an unusual brown tone.

reply

[–] bellamae 18 years ago

I thought "Interiors" was awful, dull and boring (redundant)? This movie is great.

reply

[–] Drumm09 20 years ago

Great posting heffrc.. this movie is absolutely phenomenal. Interiors is often described as Woody's best drama but I put Another Woman way above Interiors.

The first five minutes of this movie are SO WELL put together. The lighting, the music and the over voice presents us with an immediate glimpse into Marion's character and where she is in life.

What I also like about this movie is that it portrays voyeurism at it's best. She chooses to listen to that "other voice" from the ventilation vent and in doing so, we the audience, feel like we are right there next to Marion.

By the way, wasn't Ingman Bergman's cinematographer who shot "Another Woman"?

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BillHarford 19 years ago

when seeing the movie a second time, I had forgotten the strong symbolism in the movie
the scene with the mask and the shots of the lepord in the cage are brilliant.
it was bergman's cinematographer, sven nykvist (sp?) who shot this excellent film.

reply

[–] jkinoz 19 years ago

I definitely agree, "Another Woman" is a great movie. Along with the the performance of Gena Rowlands, who should have been Oscar nominated, I would add those of Mia Farrow, Sandy Dennis and Betty Buckley. All were perfect.

reply

[–] aroth15 19 years ago

I think that much of this film was excellent: The acting (Rowlands is luminous), Sandy Dennis, etc were all wonderful. The theme is a very deep one--the refusal to acknowledge one's emotions--and quite common. And the direction is superb, particularly the scenes with Gene Hackman (a transcendent actor), and the others that other posters mentioned. BUT the plot has a very serious problem, in that--as anyone who has been in therapy knows all too well--progress takes a great deal of time. In this film, Marion slowly realizes the problems in her life, and she repairs most of it and changes herself in less than 90 minutes (and the real-time in the film can't be more than a couple of months). I have seen this film many times, and this flaw in the plot renders much of the film problematic. I really hate to criticize a minor pearl when so much of what is released is pure trash, but a film that proceeds in this fashion has me laughing as it proceeds to its last scenes, particularly the one with her brother. The only scene which rings somewhat truer is the one which implies (if I am correct) that she and her husband may divorce, or at least begin a very difficult time. The denouement simply doesn't make sense. While Allen is a very fine filmmaker, comparing him to Bergmann is like comparing salmon roe to caviar.

Allen Roth
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.--Burke

reply

[–] heffrc 19 years ago

I am very flattered that some of you thanked me for the courage I had to post it(you're welcome) And just as I hoped, many of you liked it just as much as I did and talked about it with great sincerity. By all means continue to talk about this great film.
Sincerely,
heffrc

reply

[–] ageraldinepageturner 19 years ago

I like this movie a lot but I find it reminds me a lot of Wild Strawberries.

"..nobody, not even the rain, has such small hands"

reply

[–] 1011 19 years ago

think that much of this film was excellent: The acting (Rowlands is luminous), Sandy Dennis, etc were all wonderful. The theme is a very deep one--the refusal to acknowledge one's emotions--and quite common. And the direction is superb, particularly the scenes with Gene Hackman (a transcendent actor), and the others that other posters mentioned. BUT the plot has a very serious problem, in that--as anyone who has been in therapy knows all too well--progress takes a great deal of time. In this film, Marion slowly realizes the problems in her life, and she repairs most of it and changes herself in less than 90 minutes (and the real-time in the film can't be more than a couple of months). I have seen this film many times, and this flaw in the plot renders much of the film problematic. I really hate to criticize a minor pearl when so much of what is released is pure trash, but a film that proceeds in this fashion has me laughing as it proceeds to its last scenes, particularly the one with her brother. The only scene which rings somewhat truer is the one which implies (if I am correct) that she and her husband may divorce, or at least begin a very difficult time. The denouement simply doesn't make sense. While Allen is a very fine filmmaker, comparing him to Bergmann is like comparing salmon roe to caviar.

Marion is 50 years old for christs sake, how long do you want it to take for her to steer her life in the right direction? A lot of people work through their problems at a much younger age, wheras Marion pushed it back and chose to rise above it all but really she just set herself back. Now she's putting things right as best she can, firstly by dropping her cheating, unfeeling husband, then vieing to spend more time with her brother and his wife. She hasn't repaired most of it, it takes time to get over a divorce, she hasn't yet made amends with her brother...she's just starting to go in the right direction. Marion has a tough time ahead of her- whatever she does she can't take away her own, nor anyone elses, memories.

A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste

reply

[–] dscott-23 19 years ago

months; individuals of marion post's intelligence and ability to put events in perspective (rationalize in moving forward) have the ability to change components of their life in short periods of time (weeks, months). she is going to move slower and appreciate what is around her versus what she has accomplished. she is not is the same position as Hope

reply

[–] aroth15 19 years ago

Intelligence and ability have almost nothing to do with emotional development. These aspects of Marion's personality structure were formed as a small child. I doubt whether she could change to a significant degree even in a long period of time. She could change somewhat, but not substantially. And--Scott, picture the scene in Real Life when she walks into her brother's office--a brother whom she has demeaned and ignored for 20 (?) years. Imagine how he would react. In the film he basically doesn't bat an eyelash. I somehow don't think that is very realistic. Really....the typical sibling on the lower end would say something on the order of "Oh, you ignore me for years, and now you expect me to forget it all?" But that is not the crux of my comment, admittedly. I still maintain that it would take her a number of years to really change--and that's with the help of a good therapist. (No, I am not a therapist).

Allen Roth
"I look up, I look down..."

reply

[–] Kinski_Twist 19 years ago

I find it quite sick and culturally alien that you (an American?) think that people are unable to change without therapy! People are different and unique. Admittedly, some people may not be able to change without therapy, but to say that all people need therapy to change is far too general.

Why would it take her years? Not everyone is the same. The changes that she needed to make weren't even dramatic ones anyway. They weren't ones that could have been carried out over years. It was a matter of now or never. How do you leave someone over a matter of years, or get closer to your brother again over a long period of time? I don't understand what you mean. These are changes that are only able to happen suddenly and that's the whole point. She's been putting things off her whole life. Whether that be having a baby, being with a true love or staying in touch with her brother. What you're suggesting is illogical and the whole crux of the film would be destroyed if she did indeed try to change over years, instead of weeks. To state otherwise is to miss the point entirely.

Also, people react to things in different ways. You're probably right about the brother being too accepting, but perhaps that is part of his character. Not everyone faced with that situation would react in the manner you suggested. There are too many variables and your view is far too schematic.

reply

[–] aroth15 19 years ago

I just love it when someone says someone else is "quite sick and culturally alien" (whatever that means), referring to something that person never said. Nowhere did I say that no one can change without therapy. You write "These are changes that only happen suddenly." Citation, please? Not in my experience. Even with therapy it takes a long time to change one's fundamental characteristics (Notice: that does not imply that no one can change without therapy). "American?" Is that supposed to imply that being an American is something that removes intelligence or insight? I don't know where you are from, but I would never assume your nationality implied something about your character. As you yourself imply, everyone is an individual. You are entitled to your opinion about psychological change, with which I disagree. And, if I may say so, although America has done some very reprehensible things (and also some very good things), I'd like to hear of one country of whom that cannot be said. With greatness, there also comes great error. Let me hear a European, Asian, or African country who can lay claim to a higher degree of cultural achievement (in the last 50 years, not centuries ago). Nevertheless, I would never suggest (nor do I believe) that the United States is superior to another nation. If anything, what makes the US great is the synergy that results from the cultural interraction of so many diverse ethnic and racial groups, whether it is in science, the arts, athletics, business, or human rights. If anything accounts for America's greatness, it is this, I believe. Almost every other nation in the world is ethnically homogenious. "Culturally alien?" I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Please think before you suggest that about someone you have never met. And it wouldn't hurt to look in the mirror occasionally, either.

Allen Roth
"I look up, I look down..."

reply

[–] Kinski_Twist 19 years ago

I said that you were culturally alien to me because you are. I may be European like Freud was, but culturally we do not have therapy for anything other than marriage troubles or alcohol and drug abuse. It's simply alien to me and 99.9% of other Europeans also. That's why I said that you were culturally alien to me. That is also why I (rightly?) assumed that you were an American. It wasn't an insult, so I apologise if it came across like that. It's just that I'm aware that it's more a part of your culture than it is ours. I generally do find it quite worrying that so many people think that they need therapy for such minor things. That's just me. Clinical depression maybe, but little else.

Why do I need to be the one to give examples? You don't need to give examples in stating that she needed years of therapy to make the changes that she did.

"Even with therapy it takes a long time to change one's fundamental characteristics".

"that does not imply that no one can change without therapy" Errr... so you agree with me then? Her character was able to change in the time that she did.

I'm not quite sure why we have become so concerned with the motivation and psychological growth of this character anyway. After all, it is a film! Anything can happen in films. That is what's so great about them.

Oh, I agree with you about America being a fantastic country rich in modern culture as well. Although I'm not sure that it's still the Kerouacian fantasy that I still romanticise it.

One last thing. I really didn't use the term "culturally alien" as an insult either. I just used it to describe how far away I feel from a nation where some of its residents have to analyse infinitesimal details of their lives in order to be more psychologically sound. Actually, Allen makes fun of this in his film "Alice" when one of the rich mothers says that her child can't go to a party because he's beginning a new stage with his psycho analyst or something and he's about five!

Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as a buffoon. I'm sometimes too blunt and tend to write my posts very quickly. Stream of consciousness and all that.

reply

[–] Jalea 19 years ago

Marion did not change, she found herself. There is a difference. Upon deep reflection, she came to recognize and accept the truth about -- herself. And, that left her with hope for the future. She left her husband because she wanted an honest life and she realized their relationship was empty, the infidelity gave her a way out.

Her brother's reaction was anticlimatic because when she confronted him (or more aptly herself) and asked him to be honest, he was. Her brother laid the cards on the table and explained how SHE alienated HIM. She was seeking reconciliation and because he loved his sister, he did not turn her away. His reaction was not odd, I would consider it mature. Not everyone responds to everything with a torrent of emotion.

I really liked this movie a lot. It was a good experience.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Beetfields_1 14 years ago

BUT the plot has a very serious problem, in that--as anyone who has been in therapy knows all too well--progress takes a great deal of time.

The most difficult part of Marion's treatment was the mere acceptance of her coldness; throughout the movie she is constantly being shown proof of the wreckage she caused. When she finally comes to the realization, she becomes vulnerable as she tries to immediately quell the noxious areas in her life she "came to recognize" as the most detrimental. Her subsequent efforts are awkward and painful to watch, as she clearly has never made them before. I don't think she is happy when the movie ends. She is melancholic, thinking of the insatiability of Hackman's love that she must now learn to get over. Having learned to feel is the beginning of new hardship.

"We cure NOTHING! We heal NOTHING!"
-George C. Scott

reply

[–] CalendarGirl 19 years ago

I just watched this film for the first time. I was drawn to it b/c I'm a fan of Frances Conroy (Lynn - too bad she only had the one scene) and have always liked Gena Rowlands as well. Her performance was brilliant but I found the film, albeit very well done, a bit difficult to become emotionally involved in. It doesn't have that involvement that some films do so well nor does it even have (for me anyhow) the feeling of spying on the character's most intimate moments even though that is precisely what Marion does with Hope.
That being said, I did like it but I may have to let it sit with me for a little while.

reply

[–] ageraldinepageturner 19 years ago

I was drawn to it b/c I'm a fan of Frances Conroy (Lynn - too bad she only had the one scene)

Yeah, I love her too! I was dissapointed she only had one scene but it was still good to see her.

reply

[–] Connie_n_Raymond_Marble 19 years ago

Wonderful film. The final scene is as touching as any I've ever seen.

For Connie n Raymond Marble, it was the beginning of the end!

reply

[–] leelacat 19 years ago

I totally agree about the final scene. I don't remember the dialogue exactly, but when Marion is reminiscing about her encounter with Larry I got shivers and started crying.

of course page turn is the new star wipe

reply

[–] pservato 18 years ago

Absolute masterpiece. I remember the last scene, Gena Rowlands is in a room bathed with shadows reminiscing her true love story, and the narrator says 'she keep wandering if memories are something we have or someting we had lost'. Sorry because I'm not really textual. But always since I saw this film,in 1989, I keep thinking about this dilemma and also each time I hear the Satie music I remember the film and still feel the same awareness and emotion.

reply

[–] JacquesDemy 19 years ago

I love this movie, and I am a little astonished to see that it didn't get any decent awards or nominations. I think the main reason is the imitation or homage to Ingmar Bergman. Though this film is not that kind of stupid American adaption of European movies that lose the original deepness and become less powerful and more stupid and commercial, but it indeed made me feel a little weird. When I began to watch this film from my DVR, what I expected was a light-hearted intellectual comedy, so I got really confused for some time and pretty suprised to see it turned out to be so sentimental and touching. So it indeed gave me a strange and excellent experience.

Another reason of the undervaluation maybe is the leading actress, I think. Gena Rowlands was actually nearly 60 at that time instead of 50 in which the role should be, and she was not intellectual and charming enough at least as I felt, I don't know what is wrong, maybe her clothes, her facial expression or her dialoges. I am not trying to to idolize those senior women, but indeed she is not like an accomplilshed female scholars very much, maybe that is the script's flaw. But as a comparion, I think Catherine Deneuve at that time or today's Isabelle Huppert will be a much better choice for this special role. And what is more, honestly speaking, I don't believe Gene Hackman was suitable for a passionate writer, a little shallow I guess, maybe I just watched too many his action movies, I just felt a little unfortunatly funny for his role.

Anyway, I should not become so picky, there are much more to be appreciated in this film. I still believe this film is underrated in some way. It deserves a 7.6-7.8 at least. But compared to wild Stawberries, I think it is a little exaggerative to call this movie a masterpiece, since it is actually a homeage to the masterpiece.

reply