MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I was a young teen during the heyday of the generation gap, so that had something to do with my feelings about Mrs. Robinson then. :)
Thanks. When I was young & saw this film when it first came out, Mrs. Robinson was just a villain to me. Decades later, I feel pity for her, realizing that she's trapped & doesn't know how to get out of that trap.
Exactly. She might even be saying that she doesn't like art because she couldn't pursue it after college & seeing it is a painful reminder of that for her. She's unhappy with her life, knowing how much her past potential never came to anything, due to getting married—maybe even having to get married? I can't recall if that was mentioned, but it would fit.
Proof that too many people will believe the most idiotic thigs if they read them o the Internet. Not to mention being incredibly insulting to countless people with major disabilities who have accomplished so much due to sheer determination & a refusal to be diminished by the world.
But they were to become stars very soon. Gosh717 is simply pointing out the pleasure of seeing so many fine actors earlier in their careers, before they became so well known.
Agree, <i>Upstairs, Downstairs</i> is the superior period drama, even with the less shiny & lower budget production that was available in the early 1970s. The characters have more depth, the stories aren't always tied up neatly & happily, and the series overall has a definite, often scathing point of view.
Eloquently & accurately said!
Of course Waldo Lydecker is gay. His fascination with & love for Laura is in his desire to mold her into an ideal object, one that's a reflection of his perceived genius & superiority to others. He wants to own her by shaping her according to his wishes. Marrying her would simply be another part of ownership.
It wasn't uncommon then, unfortunately.
Not ancient. Just timeless.
Three years after your post, I just saw it on Kanopy as well. A smart, taut little film, no padding at all, capturing the tone of the times beautifully & providing suspense right up to the end. It needs to be better known.
I'll be interested in hearing how you feel about it after that rewatching. :)
Wisely said. It's the hope that keeps Gene going, and also keeps his pain going.
It's a movie I return to every year or so, each time enjoying it anew. Quiet, reflective, warm & deeply moving.
What was it you felt was missing from the ending?
For me (and for many viewers) the ending is immensely satisfying. It's a film about reconciliation with the past, rediscovering lost passions & dreams, coming to terms with paths not taken, the bond of family—here I think of the repeated opening & closing line of <i>I Never Sang For My Father</i>, "Death ends a life, but it does not end a relationship." But in that film, the long-sought & hoped for reconciliation between father & son never does take place. <i>Field of Dreams</i> offers the possibility that it can take place even after death—for us, not by supernatural means, but by re-assessing that relationship. We also get that in the film <i>The Way</i>, in which a father must reconcile with his dead son.
So, for me, the film is about coming to terms with the past, and with the ghosts we carry with us. Ray does just that, which is why it's so satisfying. For me, at least.
I'm not entirely sure about that, though I agree that it is about regrets. To my mind (and that's all my response really is), the film makes clear that we all have regrets. But it's also saying that it's possible & even necessary to come to terms with those regrets, in order to keep growing as an individual & to become more whole as a person, rather than letting those regrets chain you to the past. Ray, Moonlight Graham, and Terence Mann all do so, and thus find themselves more at peace with their choices, both of the path taken & the paths not taken.
He's also wonderful in <i>Two for the Road</i>.
You're not dumb at all. It's a good question.
For me, it's whether someone is open to & can see more from life than just the utilitarian. Not that it's dismissing the utilitarian, as that's a necessary part of life—but the film is simply reminding us that the things that finally & truly matter to us as human beings are often immaterial & emotional—love, faith in each other, family, memories, desires & dreams.
As Mr. Keating puts it in <i>Dead Poets Society</i>:
"We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for."
Ray & Annie still remember & know what it is we stay alive for, so they can see the players. Mark has forgotten, so he can't ... until he's shocked into remembering, at which point he can see the players. And like any convert, he's zealous about what he's suddenly (re)discovered, insisting that Ray must keep the field & not sell it, not under any circumstances.
As the alien captain says to Picard in the episode "Darmok": “Sokath, his eyes open!” Or in this case, "Mark, his eyes open!"
I doubt that Mark's partners would ever be able to see the players, though.
well said! It is indeed supposed to be an <i>experience</i>, one that's immersive & transporting. And it succeeds completely in being that, too.
I have to agree. The whole point of Star Trek is looking toward the future, after all. Next Gen wisely went some 80+ years past the Kirk era. New Trek should be doing the same & creating shows set just as far ahead of the Picard era.