Episode 185 - Adore

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

I think the fact that the sons wind up having wives and children of their own moves this into "bad" territory. Those kids don't deserve to be put through this.

 

That’s sucks, for sure, and I felt terribly for their wives and kids. Although, technically, Tom is the only one who has engaged in any “bad” behavior because he’s the only one who cheated on his wife. What did Ian do? Have a relationship with Tom’s mother? Still having feelings for her? For that matter, what did Roz do? Why should she lose her grandchild? Your example also happens at the very end of the movie and those kids are immediately taken away from *all* of them. Shit, most people who cheat on their spouses at least get visitation rights. What would have been a more suitable repercussion? There *are* consequences, it’s just that the characters don’t really seem to care. Because, like you said, they’re assholes.

 

Again, the point of the movie - for me - is about living the life you want to lead even if that means engaging in behavior that society considers “deviant.” And sometimes, in order to lead the life you want to live, you have to be selfish. You have to be an asshole.

 

A lot of people have said that there’s “no point” to the movie, but I disagree. The antagonist in this movie is societal norms and these characters are doing all the can to fight against it. All these people want to do is lay on their raft and get a tan without judgement. But because they’re so scared of what people will think if they’re open about what’s going on, they end up making bad decisions. But bad decisions don’t necessarily mean bad behavior. People make mistakes, and sometimes, those mistakes are catastrophic. You say they shouldn’t have had kids, but what were they supposed to do? Everyone was telling them that them leaving Roz and Li was “normal” and “inevitable.” Tom ends up with Mary because, on paper, that’s who he’s “supposed” to be with. She’s his age and in his field. It’s only after the fact that he realizes that she's not what he wants. Ian has children because Roz breaks up with him and tells him to go find somebody younger. And he does so - reluctantly. So Ian was “bad” because he got someone he didn’t love pregnant and married her in an attempt to “make it right?” Was Tom bad because he started to believe what Lil was telling him?

 

Everywhere they turn, they are faced with the specter of society’s judgement - and that judgement isn’t entirely coming from characters in the movie. And *that’s* the point. People on these boards have commented derisivly about their wealth and life of luxury as if money and comfort are in and of themselves moral failings. We talk about how creepy their relationships are (myself included), but they’re only having sex with who they want to have sex with. Honestly, what’s wrong with that? But for some reason we still feel the need to judge and label them “bad.” And for what exactly? Making mistakes? Being jerks? If that’s the case, well, then I guess we’re all doomed.

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

The problem is, in my mind, that not judging characters isn't reason enough for this movie to exist. A lot of movies don't judge their characters. A lot of movies even celebrate immoral characters much worse than anyone here.

 

If the movie's purpose was having the audience judge them, I don't think it accomplishes that. Partly because no one's behavior gets much worse than the first 10 minutes of the movie. So, they either cross the line 10 minutes in or they probably never do. I can't imagine there are many people who make it 90 minutes in and say they've finally gone too far when they give up their daughters.

 

Well, you know I’m just going to ask you the same thing that I asked Sycasey. Honestly, what’s so bad about their behavior in the first ten minutes? When do they “cross the line?” When Tom dances (badly) with Lil? When Roz bums a smoke? Is their behavior actually bad or does it just make you (I.e. people) uncomfortable?

 

 

You and Taylor Anne are totally free to like this movie.

 

I don’t “like” this movie exactly, but I do think it raises interesting questions.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

I can't imagine there are many people who make it 90 minutes in and say they've finally gone too far when they give up their daughters.

 

I do. Well, kind of. During the early parts of the movie I'm thinking these characters are doing weird things and don't seem to behave like actual humans, but whatever. But by the time they've had kids, brought them to see the grandmothers, and then it's revealed that the affair has still been going on and they all seem to very quickly accept that they'll never see those kids again . . . at that point, I flipped to thinking, "Oh no, these people are selfish assholes."

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

 

Brunette wife at least seems to have something going on upstairs, and in fairness to her she did meet the son while he was away at college and away from sexy moms (though her being smart does raise the question of why she never seemed to realize anything was happening, even though her husband was apparently porking Naomi Watts regularly on family vacations).

 

Well, they say it was when she would be away on a job. Lil also says they would go weeks or months without doing anything. It wasn’t an all the time thing.

 

Also, I don’t know that we need to accuse the victim of infidelity of not being smart enough to figure out it was going on. They were apparently discreet enough to hide it from the two people closest to them in the whole world for ~5 years. That should be enough.

 

 

For the blonde wife I have no explanation of her character arc. It seems like she's just there to get knocked up and become an obstacle.

 

Saying she has an “arc” is being generous.

 

I’m not saying this is the case, but it’s almost as if we’re meant to feel as apathetic of her as Ian does...

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

A lot of people have said that there’s “no point” to the movie, but I disagree. The antagonist in this movie is societal norms and these characters are doing all the can to fight against it.

 

Are they actually fighting against it, though? I don't know that I see much fight except from the blonde son. And for him, he's also very quick to lash out at people who tell him he can't have something he wants. That's part of the problem with this movie's presentation: everything is shown through this kind of hazy gauze where the characters' motives seem to change left and right. To me it seems like Tom is very much attracted to Mary until the affair is revealed and then he isn't. You could say this is happening because we're seeing it from Mary's perspective, but if so then that's inconsistent with the idea that it's just presenting these people "without judgment."

 

All these people want to do is lay on their raft and get a tan without judgement. But because they’re so scared of what people will think if they’re open about what’s going on, they end up making bad decisions. But bad decisions don’t necessarily mean bad behavior. People make mistakes, and sometimes, those mistakes are catastrophic. You say they shouldn’t have had kids, but what were they supposed to do? Everyone was telling them that them leaving Roz and Li was “normal” and “inevitable.” Tom ends up with Mary because, on paper, that’s who he’s “supposed” to be with. She’s his age and in his field. It’s only after the fact he realizes that’s not what he wants. Ian has children because Roz breaks up with him and tells him to go find somebody younger. And he does so - reluctantly. So Ian was “bad” because he got someone he didn’t love pregnant and married her in an attempt to “make it right?” Tom was bad because he started to believe what Lil was telling him?

 

Everywhere they turn, they are faced with the specter of society’s judgement - and that judgement isn’t entirely coming from characters in the movie. And *that’s* the point. People on these boards have commented derisivly about their wealth and luxury. We talk about how creepy their relationships are (myself included), but they’re only having sex with who they want to have sex with. Honestly, what’s wrong with that? But for some reason we still feel the need to judge and label them “bad.” And for what exactly? Making mistakes? Being jerks? If that’s the case, well, then I guess we’re all doomed.

 

So the good version of this is Brokeback Mountain. The cowboys can't admit to the world that they are gay, so they wind up getting married to wives they aren't really attracted to, which eventually leads to those marriages falling apart. But the difference is that the filmmakers' perspective on this is clear: we see people in this world actively persecuted for being gay. We see that Jack and Ennis feel bad about lying to their wives (one of them states it very clearly that we shouldn't blame her for their predicament). We see at the end very clearly how this kind of life affects the surviving one, how he is left alone and barely in touch with his daughter.

 

That's a way to do a morally conflicted movie about people battling against societal norms, but as opposed to Adore, that film has a clear viewpoint from the director/writer. There is perspective on how these people fit into their world and why they behave the way they do. Every time Adore comes close to providing this context, it pivots to something else. You can say all you want that the movie is just trying to present people "as they are" and that the judgment is really coming from the audience. Okay, fine. But you'd have to be living in a cave somewhere to not realize that the majority of the audience is going to immediately start judging these characters for having sex with each other's sons. It's not exactly normal. It's the filmmakers' job to account for the audience reaction they know is coming (or should know) and guide the audience on how to think/feel about it. That's what a good movie about taboo subject matter does. It's not what Adore does.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

Well, they say it was when she would be away on a job. Lil also says they would go weeks or months without doing anything. It wasn’t an all the time thing.

 

That's true, they did say that. Okay, Mary is off the hook.

[NotTheJasonOfMyGroup 47]

I thought he had started doing like college productions and then like through the work he had done plus his father's connections then got to Sydney.

 

Ok, as a professional stage director, this part of the story got my goat. Nobody just becomes a stage director like that. You figure that maybe 15%-25% of a theatre's ticket income comes from sales to one production. That's a big chunk, and you're not relying on some unknown 20 year old with no track record to keep your company afloat. The father's connections are suspect at best. He teaches college, and even that seems like something that he had to work to get. If he had connections, he would be using them for himself instead of teaching. (...this one hits slightly close to home...)

 

But the big one for me is that he directed a MUSICAL REVUE! Not a play, not a musical, but a revue. Directing a revue literally consists of saying some variation of, "OK, now you come out, stand here in the center, sing your song, and then leave." Nobody makes a name for themselves as a director by doing a revue! You can literally stage a revue in an afternoon. In fact, people do it all the time! That's why they make such great one-off fundraising events. I have a friend who accidentally directed Meryl Streep and Kevin Klein in a one-off revue one time, and guess what? It didn't open any door for him to direct again.

 

Banging the lead actress checks out though. Just ask my wife.

[grudlian. 4725]

Well, you know I’m just going to ask you the same thing that I asked Sycasey. Honestly, what’s so bad about their behavior in the first ten minutes? When do they “cross the line?” When Tom dances (badly) with Lil? When Roz bums a smoke? Is their behavior actually bad or does it just make you (I.e. people) uncomfortable?

What's bad in the first 10 minutes (or so) is two people have sex with people who are parental figures for and one of them cheats on their significant other to do this. Some people may not feel it's bad. I acknowledge their relationship crosses lines for some and not for others.

 

But my problem with Adore is characters cross lines in other movies all the time. Crossing a line doesn't necessarily make a movie worth discussing or even interesting. For example, I think killing is morally wrong but when I watch Commando, I don't have a discussion on when John Matrix crossed a line. I don't think "Well, he was killing to save his home and daughter. That's okay I guess, but I draw the line at lying to Sully about killing him last because that's premeditated murder." Is Commando a meditation on where the line is for killing?

 

So, my question is what makes this movie, to you, raise interesting questions when many movies have characters break social taboos? Because, to me, this movie doesn't raise any questions and I still don't think that was the intent of the film.

[taylor anne photo 11311]

You and Taylor Anne are totally free to like this movie.

Hey leave me and my glamor of this movie out of this lol.

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

So the good version of this is Brokeback Mountain. ...

 

That's a way to do a morally conflicted movie about people battling against societal norms...

 

That's what a good movie about taboo subject matter does. It's not what Adore does.

 

...Which is why this is being covered on HDTGM and Brokeback Mountain isn’t.

 

I’m just saying I *think* I get what the filmmakers were going for. I also think the questions the movie raises are worthy of discussion. The more my thoughts dwell on it, the more my feelings about it evolve. I’m just trying to be receptive to it. What I’m not saying, however, is that this is a superlative film or that it compares to a film that won an Academy Award for Direction and Writing.

 

I’m just viewing it on its own merits and muddling through as best I can like i do with all the films they discuss.

 

I like it; it’s also bad. No one’s arguing against that.

[grudlian. 4725]

Hey leave me and my glamor of this movie out of this lol.

sorry but the only moral line worthy of discussion is liking or hating this movie...your either with us or against us

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

...Which is why this is being covered on HDTGM and Brokeback Mountain isn’t.

 

I’m just saying I *think* I get what the filmmakers were going for. I also think the questions the movie raises are worthy of discussion. The more my thoughts dwell on it, the more my feelings about it evolve. I’m just trying to be receptive to it. What I’m not saying, however, is that this is a superlative film or that it compares to a film that won an Academy Award for Direction and Writing.

 

I’m just viewing it on its own merits and muddling through as best I can like i do with all the films they discuss.

 

I like it; it’s also bad. No one’s arguing against that.

 

That's cool. I also appreciate the chance here to flesh out my own thoughts on why it doesn't work.

 

I do think it presents characters who are assholes, but that's not strictly the problem. It's more the failure to contextualize or adequately comment upon said assholes that is the problem. The lack of perspective or consistent approach to theme leaves you with little more than the idea that we should be comfortable and accepting of these people and their behavior, because what is morality after all? I think that's . . . not a great message to take away from a movie.

[Cameron H. 23786]

So, my question is what makes this movie, to you, raise interesting questions when many movies have characters break social taboos? Because, to me, this movie doesn't raise any questions and I still don't think that was the intent of the film.

 

What makes you assume that I don’t question other films...all the time...whenever I watch them...whether I like them or not? It’s kind of what I do.

 

I mean, if you’re wondering why I’m questioning this particular movie, at this specific time, well, it’s because it’s the subject of the most recent episode of this podcast. If it weren’t, I wouldn’t be talking about it at all. And, in a couple more days, I probably won’t ever again.

 

I mean, yes, the movie’s not good. No question. And, if it doesn’t raise any questions for you, then I guess all I can say is: cool.

 

But as I was saying to Sy above, I watch bad movies because I like to watch them. And while I think comparing them to other movies that might have succeeded in doing the same thing is a valid way to view and critique them, I personally find that kind of limiting. It’s sort of like saying, “Mac and Me is a terrible movie about a boy and an alien. You know what isn’t? E.T.” I mean, well, yeah...

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

But as I was saying to Sy above, I watch bad movies because I like to watch them. And while I think comparing them to other movies that might have succeeded in doing the same thing is valid a way to view and critique them, I personally find that kind of limiting. It’s sort of like saying, “Mac and Me is a terrible movie about a boy and an alien. You know what isn’t? E.T.” I mean, yeah...

 

I have a different thought on this (well, obviously since I'm the one who brought up Brokeback). I think that if you're trying to determine what makes a movie work and what doesn't then it's useful to have examples you can point to. If you want to make a stronger point, then it's usually better to bring up a movie that is widely viewed as being one that works. That's going to be a movie with enduring popularity that won awards or something. If people can't even agree on some core tenets for what makes a movie work then the discussion tends to be fruitless.

 

So yeah, the example might be obvious, but that's kind of the point. Trying to set some common ground.

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

 

I have a different thought on this (well, obviously since I'm the one who brought up Brokeback). I think that if you're trying to determine what makes a movie work and what doesn't then it's useful to have examples you can point to. If you want to make a stronger point, then it's usually better to bring up a movie that is widely viewed as being one that works. That's going to be a movie with enduring popularity that won awards or something. If people can't even agree on some core tenets for what makes a movie work then the discussion tends to be fruitless.

 

So yeah, the example might be obvious, but that's kind of the point. Trying to set some common ground.

 

Oh, I agree, but only if your intention is to explain to others (and/or yourself) why something does or doesn’t work - which isn’t really what I’ve been trying to do. I already get that this movie is bad. You don’t need to convince me otherwise. Believe it or not, I have seen good movies before. I know what they look like.

 

Maybe think of it this way. You and I walk into an insane asylum and are talking to the patients. I’m trying to find meaning in the madness while you’re busy diagnosing it. (And if Grudlian’s there, he’s probably standing in the corner jingling his keys and telling us we’re both wasting our time because he’s seen saner people do crazier things )

 

Each of those viewpoints is valid, although they might work at cross purposes. So, while what you’re saying might actually be more useful from an academic standpoint, if I’m trying to decipher the insane gibberish some crazy person is spewing, explaining to that me the person is mad isn’t really telling me anything I don’t already know.

 

And, of course, vice versa.

[grudlian. 4725]

Maybe think of it this way. You and I walk into an insane asylum and are talking to the patients. I’m trying to find meaning in the madness while you’re busy diagnosing it. (And if Grudlian’s there, he’s probably standing in the corner jingling his keys and telling us we’re both wasting our time because he’s seen saner people do crazier things ;)/> )

Its not just that I've seen better movies cover worse characters (though there definitely are and it makes this movie look terrible in comparison). I'm curious what the intent of this movie is. Is the movie supposed to have us ruminate on morality? That's what truly makes this movie bad to me: it feels like it's pointless.

[Cameron H. 23786]

Its not just that I've seen better movies cover worse characters (though there definitely are and it makes this movie look terrible in comparison). I'm curious what the intent of this movie is. Is the movie supposed to have us ruminate on morality? That's what truly makes this movie bad to me: it feels like it's pointless.

 

I mean, I’ve *tried* to argue that it has a point, but you don’t agree with me. And that’s fine. Perhaps it’s just an Aesthetic film? “L’art pour l’art” and all that. That would certainly agree with my take of the film reserving its own judgement and the Director/Writer not taking a moral stance. Or, as Oscar Wilde’s put it, an Artist shouldn’t have “ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.”

 

It is what it is by it’s own merits. Its point is that exists and nothing more. Either that’s enough for you or it isn’t.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

Oh, I agree, but only if your intention is to explain to others (and/or yourself) why something does or doesn’t work - which isn’t really what I’ve been trying to do. I already get that this movie is bad. You don’t need to convince me otherwise. Believe it or not, I have seen good movies before. I know what they look like.

 

Maybe think of it this way. You and I walk into an insane asylum and are talking to the patients. I’m trying to find meaning in the madness while you’re busy diagnosing it. (And if Grudlian’s there, he’s probably standing in the corner jingling his keys and telling us we’re both wasting our time because he’s seen saner people do crazier things )

 

Each of those viewpoints is valid, although they might work at cross purposes. So, while what you’re saying might actually be more useful from an academic standpoint, if I’m trying to decipher the insane gibberish some crazy person is spewing, explaining to that me the person is mad isn’t really telling me anything I don’t already know.

 

And, of course, vice versa.

 

Fair enough! I was just thrown by the way this little sub-thread started. If your intent is to try to divine what the movie was trying to accomplish (regardless of whether or not it succeeded) then they probably were trying for some kind of impartial rumination on morality.

[tomspanks 9039]

and they all seem to very quickly accept that they'll never see those kids again . . .

 

I dunno if they accepted that right then and there. To me it felt more like resignation. They couldn't come up with a plausible explanation for Ian's tirade so they let the wives leave without a fight. What could they say? "It's not what it looks like" wasn't going to fly. And then we see the foursome on the floating swimming platform. Maybe they were drying off and thinking about the upcoming custody battles lol.

 

Its not just that I've seen better movies cover worse characters (though there definitely are and it makes this movie look terrible in comparison). I'm curious what the intent of this movie is. Is the movie supposed to have us ruminate on morality? That's what truly makes this movie bad to me: it feels like it's pointless.

 

In an interview for Adore, Anne Fontaine (the director) has said "My point was not to establish what is morally reprehensible or not, I have no reason to judge these characters, and pronounce them guilty or innocent. The real question is why do we do things we know will raise issues - to say the least..." So that's her point of view at least.

[Cameron H. 23786]

In an interview for Adore, Anne Fontaine (the director) has said "My point was not to establish what is morally reprehensible or not, I have no reason to judge these characters, and pronounce them guilty or innocent. The real question is why do we do things we know will raise issues - to say the least..." So that's her point of view at least.

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

double post!

 

[grudlian. 4725]

In an interview for Adore, Anne Fontaine (the director) has said "My point was not to establish what is morally reprehensible or not, I have no reason to judge these characters, and pronounce them guilty or innocent. The real question is why do we do things we know will raise issues - to say the least..." So that's her point of view at least.

Thank you!

 

This answers my questions and I think confirms Cameron H. I guess I was wrong.

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

Fair enough! I was just thrown by the way this little sub-thread started. If your intent is to try to divine what the movie was trying to accomplish (regardless of whether or not it succeeded) then they probably were trying for some kind of impartial rumination on morality.

 

That wasn't really my intention either. This all started because you said that the movie should have been "over-the top trashy" or "satirical" to make its point. My argument was that would only apply if the movie was taking a moral stance on the characters' behavior. If the movie doesn't feel like what the characters are doing is morally wrong - or isn't taking sides - then it has no reason to present the movie as trashy or satirical.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

 

That wasn't really my intention either. This all started because you said that the movie should have been "over-the top trashy" or "satirical" to make its point. My argument was that would only apply if the movie was taking a moral stance on the characters' behavior. If the movie doesn't feel like what the characters are doing is morally wrong - or isn't taking sides - then it has no reason to present the movie as trashy or satirical.

 

Well, I offered that as one of several paths the movie could have followed. I didn't say that trashy/satirical was the only way to handle this material.

[FisterRoboto 7499]

 

Well, I offered that as one of several paths the movie could have followed. I didn't say that trashy/satirical was the only way to handle this material.

But at least that would have provided some much needed entertainment.