MovieChat Forums > Grand Canyon (1992) Discussion > Was Dee Victimized By Mack?

Was Dee Victimized By Mack?

posted 13 years ago by saul_rothman
24 replies | jump to latest

The first paragraph gives my background with (and reaction to) the movie. Some readers may want to skip that paragraph. The rest of this post gives my thoughts on the character Dee; I'd love reactions to that topic.

BACKGROUND:

I saw this movie when it came out and just finished re-watching it. I gotta say, I expected to write it off as pretentious and smug from what I remembered (not that I thought it was at the time, but I've changed a lot since my youth, and I now find many of the things I used to like to be pretentious and smug; I was positive this would be one of them). I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was much better than I expected. Sure, there was stuff to take with a grain of salt. For instance, everybody was a crime victim? Even though most lived in good neighborhoods? C'mon. I've lived in LA all my life (51 years). I've been the victim of two violent crimes (one, while I lived in a bad neighborhood). However, I'm an exception in my circle of friends and family (white and Latino, lower- to upper-middle class) because not one other person I know (not one!) has ever been the victim of a violent crime. So, puh-lease with the rampant LA crime. Anyway, despite a few eye rolls, I thought this was a pretty good film.

TOPIC:

Now to my topic. Even though my viewings of the film are 20 years apart, both times I had the same reaction to Dee's speech to Mack: what a bunch of crap! By that, I don't mean the writing; I mean the character's POV.

Who the heck is this broad trying to fool? Mack never lied to her, Jane told her exactly what would happen, and she herself claimed that she knew the score and didn't expect anything unrealistic. She went into the one-night stand with her eyes wide open and with full knowledge of the situation. Now suddenly she wants to guilt out Mack? Please know that I'm not justifying what he did. He was a bum to cheat on his wife. But he in no way victimized Dee. It was mutual.

Everything happened just as she was told (and said she knew) it would, but suddenly she's playing the role of an injured party. She's just a little brat who doesn't want to accept responsibility for her actions. While she was right in saying that there were men out there who would treat her as a woman should be treated, it is only true if she behaves the way a woman should behave.

Btw, I think the film exhibited class in not showing the one-night stand onscreen. I also think Mary-Louise Parker did an excellent job in her role as Dee. But both times I watched this movie, my strongest reaction was to that scene, and I am curious if most people agree with my reaction or if many people bought into Dee's pass-the-buck baloney.

So, please, post your thoughts on Dee's dressing down of Mack. Thanks in advance.

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] bigsoundp 13 years ago

Hey Saul,

Great post.

I love this movie. And I agree with you 100%.

Yes, Mack is a total dickhead to cheat on his wife, Claire, who throughout the movie is shown as a woman of high moral integrity. A little quirky for sure. But a good woman, who seems to be a good wife, and mother. No doubt she doesn't deserve what Mack did to her.
He's a 1,000 percent guilty because he is the one in the commited relationship.

But of course Dee is guilty too. Homewrecker is not exactly any better of a title than adulterer.
She got what she deserved.

Interesting that Kasdan chose to let Mack off the hook for his part. But I must say I like that about the movie. It doesn't try to take too high of a road, and feel the need for all to be punished. In a PC fair kind of way.

Mack is clearly made out to be a sympathetic character. We like him, and thus we forgive his transgression, and are even happy to see him get a seemingly happy ending.

[–] saul_rothman 13 years ago

You're right -- he is made likeable and I was glad he didn't have to pay. Some people might disagree, but I'm glad his wife never found out. No reason for her to feel all that pain, especially if he's never gonna do it again.

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

I wasn't glad he didn't have to "pay". As it is, I wondered if Claire already knew.

[–] Nikon11 13 years ago

People cheat for all kinds reasons. Sometimes it's the cheater's fault, and sometimes it's the other person's fault. Sometimes it's both, and sometimes it's neither, and is just an unfortunate result of circumstances.

So, I don't blame Mack in this - it seems that no matter how "good" his wife is, they were just drifting apart.

[–] Ellemeno 12 years ago

I can't disagree with any of you, but I can also understand Dee's disappointment that Mack wasn't warmer afterward.

[–] saul_rothman 12 years ago

People cheat for all kinds reasons. Sometimes it's the cheater's fault, and sometimes it's the other person's fault. Sometimes it's both, and sometimes it's neither, and is just an unfortunate result of circumstances.

I might possibly buy into it being only one person's fault, but it would have to include one of the parties being in the dark. I cannot image any situation in which it was nobody's. No act of cheating springs spontaneously out of nowhere. Every single one is the result of a series of bad choices which may seem little when made, but which are clearly heading in the direction of cheating. I cannot see how any adulterer can claim no fault.

So, I don't blame Mack in this - it seems that no matter how "good" his wife is, they were just drifting apart.

Well, if they were growing apart, then Mack should've had the decency to divorce first and then have sex with someone else. I'll never ever agree that Mack was not at faulty. My point was that Dee was as well.

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] whitespirit26 12 years ago

You're right on Saul.

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 11 years ago

She victimized Mack cause she was a weak azz woman, there I said it, do I get a gold star daddy, do I?

[–] lamont-hard 11 years ago

Harsh but somewhat true, So ofter women whom bed married men are given a pass, but she knew what she was getting into. I wish they would show more woman whom if they do cheat or bed a married man to just accept it as sex or a good time/companionship without portraying them to always have to have love, finding themselves, or dissatisfied with there partner to be the motivator. This is modern times and women need not cling to old time habits for a good time.

[–] Nikon11 11 years ago

I cannot see how any adulterer can claim no fault.

I'll give you that this position doesn't garner much sympathy. But sometimes there're circumstances that prevent someone from getting a divorce, which they might want, but their spouse may keep them from getting. It doesn't sound possible - but with children involved, it can be something that's best left not done till later.

So while you or I can have opinions on what Mack should or shouldn't do - who are we to judge what he decides, and what's best, at this particular time, for him, his wife, his kid, his life?

[–] saul_rothman 11 years ago

who are we to judge what he decides, and what's best, at this particular time, for him, his wife, his kid, his life?

Who are we? We are people with brains. The idea of not judging is how people are able to fool themselves into thinking they haven't done wrong.

Please know that I have done many wrong things in my life. But I hope the day never comes when I don't recognize that I've done wrong.

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] Nikon11 11 years ago

I disagree. A person in a love-less/sex-less marriage sleeps with another person because they need that feeling and closeness of someone. But you, with your institutionalised scale of morality, determine that this person is wrong.

So, what? To satisfy your judgement, people should stop? Or what, get a divorce? Maybe that's not feasible or what's best, especially if kids are involved.

Something definitely isn't right, but I'm not going to pass judgment on others as easily as you may be inclined to do.

[–] saul_rothman 11 years ago

When the person got married, did he promise to love, honor, cherish, and forsake all others for better or worse, in sickness and health till death do him part, or did he promise to to love, honor, cherish, and forsake all others as long as he felt like it?

What the hell does a promise mean?

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't tragic situations out there, and I'm not saying I can't understand the deep emotions that tear at people, and I'm not saying I don't understand giving in. I'm saying that we shouldn't compound those things with a lie that the act wasn't wrong.

No one should stop anything to satisfy my judgment -- but they should do all they can to resist for the sake of their own characters and to avoid the fallout to people they once supposedly loved and maybe still do (I'm not limiting that to the spouse).

The interesting thing is that Mack's marriage may have been in a slump, but it wasn't dead. So the example we're using is a perfect one to back up my point. Very often, struggling through bad times ends up making the marriage stronger than ever -- but that outcome is less likely if one of the spouses does something stupid.

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] Nikon11 11 years ago

When the person got married, did he promise to love, honor, cherish, and forsake all others for better or worse, in sickness and health till death do him part, or did he promise to to love, honor, cherish, and forsake all others as long as he felt like it?

I'm sorry, but you need to grow up a bit. People change. I don't believe that any couple is truly that compatible and meant to be together forever.

[–] saul_rothman 11 years ago

I need to grow up? I'm the one who thinks a vow should mean something -- that's a grown-up position. If it's universally recognized that people change, then why isn't the vow "love, honor, cherish, and forsake all others unless I change"?

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] Sylviamoon 11 years ago

I don't think she was victimized necessarily (although her working for him is another detail that complicates things a bit). As you said (or she said), she went in eyes wide open.

But I think it's entirely usual for people to know something intellectually but react more strongly than they thought they would when the actual emotions surface. She was obviously in a sort of denial about how easily she could handle her feelings for Mack. Hers were stronger than his and it hurt.

I think of when she said he was now taking away her right to resent him. I didn't think it was really about responsibility for her. Rather, the frustration of wanting to grieve and be angry about the loss of the man she would never have, who was basically decent enough that she couldn't even rage at him properly.

[–] saul_rothman 10 years ago

Great points, Sylvia!

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

Mack seemed like a good guy on balance, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you to a degree here.

Mack was doing what a lot of successful, often white, middle-aged men do, he was asserting his success and privilege to play the 'big man'/hero with a younger woman who looked up to him and admired his achievements. Like almost any man, particularly if they're straight, he appreciated and lapped up the admiration/interest of a beautiful young woman (that response, rightly or wrongly, is natural), but as a married man who knew that the relationship could never go far, because he loved his wife and would have been unwilling to sacrifice his marriage, he should not have exploited that admiration by engaging in an affair. He submitted to temptation, kind of like what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky, and if rumours are to be believed, many other women before whilst he was governor of Arkansas.

Admittedly, there probably is some envy speaking here but I also know that were I in a similar situation to Mack I might briefly fantasise about submitting to temptation, but ultimately I would not commit adultery and string along a woman knowing that the affair would never go anywhere (I've been in various situations where I've prevented myself from doing what I'd like to do, and instead done the responsible 'right' thing, so despite never having been in Mack's exact circumstances I've been in analogous scenarios). What Mack did was unfair both to Mack's wife, Claire and Dee.

[–] saul_rothman 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn,

We don't disagree at all.

And I love your username. I love that movie, love that scene.

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

HarveyManfredSinJohn,

We don't disagree at all.

And I love your username. I love that movie, love that scene.

Saulisa

I'm glad we agree Saulisa.

And thanks for the nice words about my username. Can you also see my avatar?

Funny thing is, when I posted here I wasn't even consciously thinking that I was discussing a character played by the same actor who also played 'Harvey Madfredsinjohn'.

It's a great scene isn't it? And I just love that ridiculous name. How difficult would it have been to make-up a sensible name on the spot...then again Otto is *whisper it* rather stupid.

[–] saul_rothman 10 years ago

I nearly mentioned your avatar last post - and I, also, didn't put it together that we were talking about two Kevin Kline roles!

For me, the icing on the cake for that scene is when Wendy, the stereotypical civilized Brit, repeats the entire idiotic name perfectly, without questioning it.

ETA: Sorry, I can't resist. I know it's not a Monty Python film, but anything remotely Python always puts me into Quote Mode:

"Well, thank you, Mr. ManfredSinJohn, for popping in and saving us all."

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

I agree. The way 'Wendy' simply repeats the name, completely unfazed, is the icing on the cake. You don't know whether she knows it's a made-up name and is just humouring 'Harvey' or she does really believe it. She's not stupid but she is one of those condescending people who doesn't question anything, so it could be either case, and her behaviour is hilariously 'English'.

[–] saul_rothman 10 years ago

Exactly!

Saulisa

Logic is our best defense against The Experts.

[–] ChickFlicksandBeer 10 years ago

Boom.

www.chickflicksandbeer.com
www.facebook.com/chickflicksandbeer