Tom and the fellas

What did you think of Tom? I alternated between liking him somewhat (as in "oh brother, what will he say next?") and dismissing him as a selfish egoist. The fact that he didn't have much feeling for Audrey until he discovered that she wanted to preserve his letters for posterity said a lot about him. Clearly, the way to his heart was through his vanity.

Which of the male characters most intrigued you? Tom the intellectual of limited resources; Nick the cynical man about town; Charlie the self-important man of sincerity; or Fred the sleepy alcoholic (I loved the scene where he was dozing in the chair but got excited when he heard the cha-cha music).

Jane Austen takes Manhattan

What do you think is the significance of all the Jane Austen references in "Metropolitan," particularly the ones to her novel "Mansfield Park," where much is made of young wealthy people putting on a play. And don't forget the Austenesque "virtuous heroine." Does our movie have a "virtuous heroine"? Is it an Austenesque satire of the upper crust or something else?

Mabel

Given the title of the movie, Mabel is nominally the central character, but we spend at least as much time with Nick and we see nothing of Mabel during her confinement in hospital. Two things I was thinking about when considering Mabel was first, would she have faired better in a different cultural setting? At times she seems, if not completely happy, at least in pursuit of joy. She wants people to dance and sing, and she plays enthusiastically with children, appreciating their unfettered glee in the moment. If Mabel lived in a more expressive culture, say Spain, would she have faired better? Perhaps escaping the label of abnormal, ill? Second, would she have done better with a more supportive and capable spouse? Likewise, would Nick have avoided his violent disintegration if he had been married to the sort of normal woman he no doubt expected?

Urban Haute Bourgeoisie (Metropolitan)

“UHB” is a delightful coinage. One thing I liked about this movie is how in the frequent discussions of the failure of the UHB, it was always assumed by everyone that the UHB were going to fail as if it was so obvious that you wouldn’t bother to question. Now the old WASP ascendancy had been losing its position for decades, but does that translate into almost certain failure for each and every young UHB? Does this peculiar conceit play an important role in the movie? Does one of the reasons that the movie has such a charmingly light tone come from the acceptance without gloom of these youth that they are doomed?

Irreducible Characters

One of the things that struck me while watching “A Woman Under the Influence” (and was even stronger as I reflected back on the film) was the arc of the character development. These characters are slowly unwrapped for us as we see deeper and deeper into their relationship. We first see Nick in a sympathetic light and only slowly realize that he doesn’t know how to deal with Mabel and her condition and only after that do we see how abusive he is. Likewise, our first view of Mabel reveals her to be full of anxiety and probably fragile. With time we see how poorly she can cope with her life and how debilitating her problems are be they the excessive fixation on her kids or her inappropriate intimacy with strangers. I like this gradual development since it keeps you focused on the characters as individual instead of just pigeonholing them as “abusive husband” and “hysterical wife”.

Are You a Public Transportation Snob?

Well, “Metropolitan” does live up to my memory of it and it is better than “Barcelona”. One thing that impressed me was not just the high quality of the dialog, but that they could pull off such improbable conversations. I had forgotten that Tom was a Fourierist and that there was another kid in the group who also knew about Fourier. That is a completely improbable event, but in this movie, that didn’t matter.

Let this first thread be the what-stood-out-for-you thread.

Metropolitan

For an interim movie, I wanted something a bit lighter than Cassavetes. When my parents were out here last summer we watched a couple of movies one of which was Whit Stillman’s “Barcelona”. I liked it but remember thinking at the time that his other film, “Metropolitan” was better. Time to find out.

This one is on Netflix and might even be in your local rental. I’ll start a thread or two over the weekend and everyone can jump in when they get the chance.

Under the Influence of Cassavetes

Did everybody get a chance to see the film? I watched it on a Criterion disk, but looking at Criterion’s site, I see that they only have released a box set of Cassavetes and not his individual movies. That might be why Netflix didn’t have it. If all of you didn’t see it, we can move on to a different movie.

This can be a first reactions thread. I have been reading about Cassavetes for years in the writings of serious film bluffs and the occasional academic. In such circles he is highly regarded and oft mentioned. But as we found with Netflix, his movies are not much in circulation as general audiences don’t seem interested in watching them. Based on the single one I just saw, I think I have an explanation for that. I found “A Woman Under the Influence” to be an excellent film and I have a high appreciation for it, but I didn’t enjoy watching it. Most movies that I consider excellent I’d be happy to watch over and over even if they are difficult. “Woman” was just too draining though. I plan on watching other Cassavetes work, but it will be a while before I come back to this one.