Did anyone else think that having the main character, Paul Hunham, smell like fish due to a medical condition that prevents him breaking down a particular chemical was heavy-handed? How much more could they pile on this guy to make him less attractive? He's bald, pudgy, can not do the simplest of stretching exercises, throws like a girl, and speaks in such an esoteric manner (often in Latin) as to be wholly unrelatable to the common 1970-71 man or woman. It was just a bridge too far that women (like Miss Crane) would want to be near him.
He's bald, pudgy, can not do the simplest of stretching exercises, throws like a girl, and speaks in such an esoteric manner (often in Latin) as to be wholly unrelatable to the common 1970-71 man or woman.
----
Don't forget the wild wall eye...
--
It was just a bridge too far that women (like Miss Crane) would want to be near him.
--
I must admit when the third act reveal came that he SMELLED bad -- like FISH -- and that he smelled WORSE as the day went on -- it did seem a bridge too far for me, too. Miss Crane -- any woman -- who could see past Hunham's eccentricities (and perhaps be in awe of his book knowledge and command of Latin) could like NOT move on to physical love with a man who smelled like bad fish.
But I also rather think that this reveal rather more fully explained Hunham's anger, tyranny and separation from life(I can't remember the line exactly, but the one about how people did much want to be around him, and he didn't want to be around THEM. This explains both.)
On hearing this plot information I started the mentai work: Medication? Cologne?(or would that make the smell worse?)
We know of many love stories where the woman sacrifices for the man(or vice versa.) If a woman was truly in love with Humham and wished to make love with him -- well, put some sort of menthol cream under the nostrils(as Jodie Foster does near a corpse in Silence of the Lamb), wear nose plugs(like swimmers do) ...and go to town.
Umm, excuse me, TrentnQuarantino, you don't know me (or roger1, for that matter) to make any comments about our superficiality or knowledge of women. I'm commenting on a film that takes place in 1970-71 and what I find credible. It in no way indicates how I view the real world or how well I understand women in my life and times. Say what you will about the messengers, I/we just think the filmmakers went too far to make the lead character revolting while trying to make him lovable to the opposite gender.
> It was just a bridge too far that women (like Miss Crane) would want to be near him.
I read what you think, and what I think is that you are wrong to think these characters unbelieveable. He was not LOVEable to the opposite gender, and love is not always motivated by looks, money or smell - especially in 1970s.
They have to exaggerate character's characteristics in movies because it is not reality because subtlety is not useful for spinning yarns.
It's also not like he ended up with Crane, who has a fiance if I am not mistaken.
Yeah, I watched the whole movie, including the tacked-on ending.
The impression I got of Crane was that she was loose. There's nothing to indicate the man she kissed at the door of her party was her fiancee. Just a random guy she's having sex with, and she would have had sex with Hunham too. Otherwise, she would have been a total cocktease, and that just doesn't make sense within the plot of this movie? Why devote so much screen time to an otherwise friendly, wholesome character manipulating the protagonist?
It's also not like he ended up with Crane, who has a fiance if I am not mistaken.
---
Like a lot of Alexander Payne movies, there is an undertow of sadness and a "life is unfair" element that makes most of them quite melancholy even as they usually struggle to a fairly happy ending.
In the Christmas party scene, Payne sets up a possible romantic partner for each of our lonely protagonists -- Miss Crane for Hunham; the janitor for Mary the cook; and a suddenly introduced pretty and flirtatious young woman for Angus(and how fun is it for any young man to come to an "adult party" and find a supple and interested young woman there as if by sheer luck?)
There are frustrating ends for all three protagonists: Mary is too emotionally devastated, angry and sobbing to "connect romantically" with the janitor(but I figure some day she WILL); Angus is pulled out of the party "just when things were getting interesting with the girl"(but maybe he will seek her out some day, and in any event, OTHER girls show interest in him, later in the film) and....poor Hunham, who really seems to be getting somewhere with the always kind and attentive Miss Crane ...has to see her greet another, more handsome man with a kiss. Fiance or not, I think the message is: Hunham is in Miss Crane's "friend zone."
The impression I got of Crane was that she was loose. There's nothing to indicate the man she kissed at the door of her party was her fiancee. Just a random guy she's having sex with, and she would have had sex with Hunham too. Otherwise, she would have been a total cocktease, and that just doesn't make sense within the plot of this movie? Why devote so much screen time to an otherwise friendly, wholesome character manipulating the protagonist?
---
Hmmm. Oh, I dunno. The way it played out, I felt she was simply "always being nice" to Hunham as a matter of her personality(and maybe he was higher on the staff food chain at the school, worthy of professional respect.) I guess she kissed Hunham under the mistletoe, but it was rather a quick friendly peck. Still, I think it was the MAKERS of The Holdovers(director, writers) -- not Miss Crane -- who led us in the audience on that this could be "the love connection" for Hunham. We're only human. We are hoping they will get together and...nope. And it hurts us like it hurts Hunham. And keeps his character sad to watch.
So perhaps(SPOILER) at the end, when Hunham must leave the school for good, it is GOOD to leave the false promise of Miss Crane behind and see what a new place will bring to him.
That was another thing I found incredulous - 'what the new place will bring him.'
Did anyone else get the impression that he was totally screwed from an employment perspective? What hope did he have to secure another teaching job at anywhere near a prestigious private school as Barton with the basis of his departure looming over him. We know that he was largely innocent, but he fell on his sword and was fired under the cloud of a profanity-laced diatribe at a student's parents. What school would hire him except the roughest, inner city public school? What other skills did he have to secure alternative employment? Even if he wrote his monograph about Cathage, would it be published? Would it sell - except to a very narrow audience of other esoteric individuals?
That was another thing I found incredulous - 'what the new place will bring him.'
Did anyone else get the impression that he was totally screwed from an employment perspective?
---
Not necessarily. Oftimes in matters of seeking employment after having been fired from another job, a certain "understanding" between the previous employer and the "firee" is part of it. The firee can use vague terms like "it didn't work out" and in this case...the school might back him up to avoid controversy. The real reason he WAS fired was for a humane and compassionate act...a school might not want to reveal they FIRED him over it.
---What hope did he have to secure another teaching job at anywhere near a prestigious private school as Barton with the basis of his departure looming over him. We know that he was largely innocent, but he fell on his sword and was fired under the cloud of a profanity-laced diatribe at a student's parents. What school would hire him except the roughest, inner city public school?
---
Well, maybe he could handle a rough inner city school. Failing that, the US was (and is) FILLED with various colleges of various types and levels...he could probably find a job SOMEWHERE doing what he does. Colleges need people who can teach the MOST esoteric and non-practical subjects. But..."its only a movie" and we are left to guess.
THIS I believe strongly: ten years from now, assuming that Angus is successful and rich(family money available?) I think he WILL come to Hunham's rescue. He could loan Hunham money, use his connections to get him a job --sure Hunham has to struggle during those ten years, but I believe that Angus will always value the sacrifice and come through for him in the end. Maybe before the 10 years pass...Angus could pressure or even blackmail his mother and stepdad into helping Hunham. Etc.
That's the thing about "a story well told and people you believe in." You try to see the story AFTER the movie ends..
Sorry, too many leaps in logic for me. You're giving 1970's educational institutions too much credit, Hunham's ability to survive another ten years too much credit, and Angus's ability and willingness to help out an old teacher ten years later. Remember, at the end of the movie, Angus is unaware of the precise sacrifice Hunham made for him so that he would not have to go to military school, and Vietnam. He may never be made aware, and by the early '80's, he may not care much about his high school years, Vietnam, or how close he came to attending military school. He'll be too busy selling junk bonds and mutual funds with the rest of the yuppies of his class and generation.
I think he'd be dead by 1974 from some alcohol related illness or injury.
"Did anyone else think that having the main character, Paul Hunham, smell like fish due to a medical condition that prevents him breaking down a particular chemical was heavy-handed? "
We had a guy like that in school. It's a stretch that anyone would want to be near him.
But it barely made the movie worse, it's already 2/10.
The film was somewhat poorly written. It kept alternating between good and bad writing, almost scene by scene. It was quite jarring at times. The characters are fairly rote, but the movie is charming and funny and well acted enough to recommend. It's a really odd duck of a film that I think should have been more focused on Giamatti's character and less on everything else.
Precisely, case in point when Giamatti is responding to Angus's question as to whether he'd ever been with a woman. "A white, hot passion burned in my loins," Giamatti generically replies. And then when neither Angus nor the audience believes him, Giamatti exclaims, "White hot!" as though we should all now think, "I still thought he was a vigrin, but now that he repeated 'White hot,' well, he must have been a stud."
I thought all the stuff with the black woman was forced and really took away from the movie. She was clearly only there for that much heralded "diversity" clout films need in order to qualify for Oscars these days, and it was very obvious as the film stopped dead in its tracks whenever it focused on her and her sappy, melodramatic subplot.
And naturally, when making a movie set around a private all boys school in the 70s, a black person should make up about one third of your plot, otherwise it wouldn't be realistic.
I didn't necessarily have a problem with the Da'Vine Joy Randolph character (Mary Lamb). My issue was with her accent. It seemed as though she was attempting a some kind of a regional Massachusetts accent, and it just sounded 'off' of fake to me.
I thought it was a good device to show Hunham's progressive nature. He didn't care that Mary was black, a woman, or 'the help.' He expected her to dine with him and the other boys, and he seemed genuinely interested in her as a person, no patronizing at all. I'm sure that was not the norm for New England private school teachers in the early '70's, so it went a long way toward humanizing Hunham. Sure, they could have revealed his heart in other ways through another character(s), but they chose to do so with a black, female cook who lost her son in Vietnam.