MovieChat Forums > Mistress America (2015) Discussion > Mistress America: what would you say the...

Mistress America: what would you say the film is about? - a discussion

posted 9 years ago by alwayshungryy
12 replies | jump to latest

I've been thinking a lot about the film, and I can't seem to decide on what it's actually about. The most common answers I've seen is

(1) It's about the friendship between two women. I'm not really convinced as Tracy obviously just looks up to Brooke and wants her life and I feel like she is "studying" her instead (for example she notices her flaws but doesn't tell her and just analyses it in her short story). While Brooke is glad to be admired by a younger person and maybe also longs for the time when she was Tracy's age, when there was still hope (whereas now she finds she has to but can't follow through with actual substantial decisions).

(2) Mid-life, quarter-life crisis - this is the more obvious one, but it is too broad. I feel like the film is dealing with this theme but doesn't really say much about it - for example a big problem I have with the film is there is no character arc. Brooke's character journey is just that she realized her flaws through Tracy but in the end she moves away (she didn't change - she jumps into things too quickly and has no follow through, she instead thinks her way out is to move away and hopes things work out there) so I don't think she grew as a character. Tracy is frustrated about not achieving as much as she wants to and wants a short cut to where Brooke is, but this kind of goes nowhere as she takes a back seat in the second half.

So in the end is the film telling us, well life is confusing and you just have to keep trying? I feel like the themes weren't really delved into or there wasn't a character journey that offered something to say about the subject.

Which is frustrating because I loved the film but the more I think about it the more I'm confused.

[–] llieno-94 9 years ago

For me, as cynical as it sounds, the film was about using people...

Tracy was using Brooke to get a better story subject. Of course there was a real relationship there, but a big part of that relationship for Tracy was using Brooke as a muse. Brooke, conversely, was using Tracy to feel successful. Tracy was someone who she (somewhat mistakingly) thought she could impress and thus, feel better about her crappy life situation.

Tony was using Nicolette to get past his feelings for Tracy. Mamie was using her husband for the lifestyle she thought was best for her. Even Tracy and Brooke's parents were using each other and their marriage as a means to an end.

When the two decide to not get married, the "using" that everyone is doing is brought to the surface in a sort of chain reaction- Tracy's story is revealed to be about Brooke, Nicolette sees Tony and Tracy kissing, Mamie's husband begins to defy her.

I think in the last scene, however, when Tracy sees that Brooke has a copy of the lit publication, shows that Gerwig and Baumbach don't exactly think using people is wrong... thats how we get through life. Brooke, though slightly insulted by the story, did get what she wanted- Tracy adored her and looked up to her. Nicolette wanted a trusting boyfriend just as much as Tony wanted to get over Tracy, and Mamie's husband wanted someone to depend on him (you cans see he thrives off of this when he offers Brooke $42,000) just as much as Mamie wanted them to have a perfect life.

Its not that we are awful people that use other people, but we all use each other to get by. Mistress, after all, is a man using a woman for sex in an extramarital affair, and American lifestyle is a reflection of all this. Mistress America!

Instagram- _sam_oneill

[–] wearyourlove 9 years ago

It's the first line of the movie. "She said every story was a story of betrayal." Something like that, anyway. The characters all begrudge someone their success, or are envious of what they don't/can't/no longer have.

Identity politics plays a big part here, too. Everyone is performing a kind of role, whether it's because they haven't formed a concrete self-concept, they're compensating for a perceived weakness or insecurity, or they're behaving how they think they should behave based on social expectations attached to age, vocation, social caste, etc. Baumbach underlines the performative aspect through a fairly overt theatricality exhibited in staging, dialogue, and music, even placing Brooke on a literal stage toward the end to facilitate an archly dramatic speech. Characters keep saying and doing things that seem to belie or obscure their intentions, and their identities seem to get easily confused - especially between Tracy and Brooke. How can we tell when someone is being authentic? When does a certain attitude or character become your own and not merely something appropriated? Does it happen?

[–] trisul 9 years ago

Or maybe it is all in the concluding narration:

She was the last cowboy, and her kind had nowhere to go. Being a beacon of hope for lesser people is a lonely business.

[–] tpupkin 9 years ago

Wearyourlove's take was pretty close to mine. It's about identity.

Brooke is someone who is almost obsessively "presenting" herself, and doing it in a way that is completely self-aware -- and yet the act of presentation is like a way of distracting herself so that that awareness does not turn into introspection. I took this as a kind of generational comment from Baumbach: this is how a certain type of young person operates today. Tracy is enamored of Brooke's constant activity: she is "seen" doing all these things, even though the substance of any of them (the singing, the exercise, the partying, the meetings, the tutoring, etc.) is an afterthought. This is why the two girls don't actually converse, but they say disconnected things toward each other with very little actual substantial exchange happening. They simply present information to one another, as if presenting themselves is being themselves.

These scene that really focused this for me was when everyone was so critical of Tracy's story. None of them could actually pinpoint anything in the story worth criticizing. In fact, Mamie-Claire generates a list of complete non-sequiters, the point of which is to present herself as a serious person. Why did all the people object so strongly to Tracy's story? Because it probed beneath the surface. It exposed what all of them were afraid of facing: that their constant movement and polishing of their own surfaces had no meaning. It was an affront to all of them.

[–] nihilist_jabroni 9 years ago

In fact, Mamie-Claire generates a list of complete non-sequiters, the point of which is to present herself as a serious person. Why did all the people object so strongly to Tracy's story? Because it probed beneath the surface. It exposed what all of them were afraid of facing: that their constant movement and polishing of their own surfaces had no meaning. It was an affront to all of them.

This! Excellent analysis. Bravo.

[–] cocomoco-08292 9 years ago

My thoughts are similar to yours, except instead of thinking it's about using people, I think it's about wanting what others have. I would never say that Tracy is using Brooke -- she's inspired by her; it's clear that she truly loves being around her and looks up to her.

Like you said, I think the key scene is the one in Mamie and Dylan's house -- the relationship between the characters is very telling, in my opinion. So going back to my initial thought:

-Tracy wants the exciting life that Brooke has and her zest for life

-Brooke wants the money and stability that Mamie and her husband have

-Mamie wants a baby like Karen, who is pregnant

-Dylan wants to feel young and hip like Brooke and her posse (like when he keeps saying "weed" and Mamie calls him out on it)

-Tony wants Tracy's writing talent

-Nicolette wants whatever it is about Tracy that continuously draws him to her

I think the last line of the movie sort of backs this up: "Being a beacon of light to lesser people is a lonely business."

[–] mcmingus 9 years ago

Thanks for the post. Good analysis. I hadn't thought of it that way.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

[–] Trixie27 8 years ago

Definitely reminded me of Wes Anderson characters. Good movie but, unlike a WA movie, the absurdity and characterizations felt forced at times throughout the film. The dialogue was off at a few points in a way that made me see the actors and not their characters. Notably, in Mamie-Claire's and Dylan's home. Way too awkward but also familiar in a way that most people would not behave in a stranger's home. I did enjoy the road trip scene on the way to Greenwich.

[–] bastille-852-731547 9 years ago

The second point you mention is basically the archetype of all of Baumbach's films.

[–] kerib1982 9 years ago

Wow! A lot of thought went into all these takes on the movie! Awesome! This is, to me, what a great movie is capable of. The imprssion I got of the film, was that it is a look at what happens when we see past the facade of someone we "think" has the perfect life. From instigraming how awesome our food/body/friend's/ live's are, we, like Tracy, come away with a skewed and rather shallow definition of perfection. We try and emulate it- much like Tracy took on some of Brooke's boldness and candor, but at the end of the day, it's not real and we are just left with more questions for ourselves to muddle through. Undoubtedly Brooke and Tracy were using each other to help fill needs within themselves, but in the ending I saw real hope. The two of them, flaws exposed, came together to give to each other rather than take. Their tenuous bond to each other is now being forged of stronger stuff. They don't have the "we're almost family" to cling to, so they begin again knowing that each one of them respects and admires the other and their is genuine caring there. Maybe Brooke did move to LA, but I like to think that she and Tracy still stayed connected, and through their relationship, each one has a few less questions about life and self to muddle through alone now.
PS- the style of the film had some Wes Anderson influence, it felt to me. Not in the cinematography but in the playful absurdity and almost uncomfortable honesty of the characters, did anyone else get that feeling at all?

[–] shelemm 8 years ago

The movie sets up the audience to thinking that the main character,a young woman trying to make something of a creative life in Manhattan, is fooling herself. In reality though, she is not even doing that. She knows she is at a dead end, and her brilliant blaze of energy is like one of those stars in the sky that still twinkles even though it has already burned through everything it can. The film mocks the main character, but not in a cruel way. We all know that if she /we were just a bit more cutthroat, things could be different.

[–] marno76 8 years ago

this movie touches many topics all well envisioned by those who replied.
I think it also is about identity and self perception.
anyway since I am italian and writing from a mobile i cant go further. I only wanna say that discussions like this one are the reason why I joined IMBD almost ten years ago. and this is the first one an good level.
If any one of you pass by milan, italy just drop me line. A pasta, a glass of.wine and a bed for the night are granted.
Finally a MEANINGFUL topic. God bless ya.