What's really disappointing, I guess, is that hardly anyone seems to even note this. I know I'm not the only liberal out there, but this movie is all about how you should stay in your lane, be provincial, lead a boring, staid life, only date people your own age, stay in school, do what your parents say...yet hardly anyone seems to note "wow, that's a pretty Puritan message there".
shareSPOILERS:
Jenny had fun with David, but all that fun was paid for by David's shady activities and theft. What kind of life would that become for her, depending on a con man who took advantage of other people?
I don't think that would be particularly empowering
for Jenny.
So in the end she knows she has to make her own way, and she's a gifted student. Oxford was no straitjacket for her. It gave her options she normally wouldn't have had.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
Maybe I was too ambiguous in my OP, but a big part of my disappointment was with what they had David turn out to be like. I was never saying "let's have David be this shady con artist at heart, and have Jenny stay with him". I was saying I would've liked the movie a lot better if he had turned out to be pretty much what he seemed to be when she met him, and even if she didn't stay with him he opened up her world and helped her escape her stifling bourgeois "little boxes" life.
In other words, portray a situation where a girl is going down the safe, socially prescribed path her parents insist she follow, then show her abandoning that path for an alternate, bohemian one...and then nothing really bad happens! Well, from some people's point of view (her parents) it's bad: no prestigious degree or prestigious career, no savings, no respectable house in the suburbs. She travels the world, enjoys life day to day, and is fulfilled and healthy even if her parents don't get it.
That's the movie I thought I was seeing early on, and would have loved it to be rather than what it turned out to be.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
True, it might have been more interesting.
To me David seemed rather vulnerable. He was trying to stay young by being with her. The memoir on which this is based portrays him in a worse light than he even comes across in the film. I knew he was trouble, but I didn't know what kind of trouble. In fact, the way he made his living on the margins of the economy was sort of exciting to me. I liked that he was a rule-breaker, but he went too far.
Right, he wasn't secretly an OTT moustache-twirling villain, at least not in the movie.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
I didn't get that at all. You also seem to ignore that David is a thief for a living. Should she really start robbing houses in the name of liberalism? What does that say about liberals and about you, that you would prefer she run off with David and become a criminal? I felt the point of the story was that she grew up a little and realized that some - not all - of her youthful notions about life, sophistication and freedom were silly and ill-informed. As a bookish sort myself, I relate to her "education." Life as it exists in books bears only a passing resemblance to life as you actually have to live it.
shareI wouldn't say he was a flat out thief. But no, what I wish is that David had turned out to be what he seemed to be at the beginning.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
he made a habit of going into houses that were for sale and stealing things out of them. what kind of thief would you say that is, if not a "flat out" thief?
Who cares about stairs? The main thing is ice cream.
I'm a liberal who thinks 16 year old children shouldn't be romantically involved with 30+ year old criminals. is this really a weird worldview that I have?
Who cares about stairs? The main thing is ice cream.
No, it's not weird, just the opposite in fact.
The part about his being a thief is a non sequitur. My point is that it is disappointing that the movie had him turn out to be bad news, and made the moral of the story that she should have just stayed in the straight and narrow, provincial lane her parents had mapped out for her.
I wish he had just been an older, cosmopolitan, legit businessman with interesting friends as it initially appeared, and she went off with him and things turned out okay for her even if not how her parents had intended.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
he started out as bad news. he was lying to Jenny parents right away. it's not like he was painted as a good guy and then everything changed. he was a scumbag the whole time
the film doesn't actually say Jenny should take any certain path. she chose college, but it didn't say she had to finish, or that she had to become a teacher, or that she couldn't drop out in her sophomore year and follow the Grateful Dead
Who cares about stairs? The main thing is ice cream.
I am as liberal as they come and I did not come away from the movie thinking that at all.
shareI don't agree with your take-away. Life, and this movie, is not so simplistic.
She was taken in by a scoundrel, but she was willing to take that risk so that she did not lead a hard and boring life. The line: "It's an argument worth rehearsing. One day someone else will want to know what it's all for" is a powerful moment. She finally got the opportunity to be romanced by people who were cultured as she was. In the end, the movie is not filled with regret.
She liked Burne-Jones, 'still.'
[deleted]