Jump to content
JulyDiaz

Episode 185 - Adore

Recommended Posts

Oh I just got reminded of a small correction -

 

When Lil and Roz say, "But fucking men!" I don't believe that it was supposed to be received as "Patriarchy!" *fist shake* I believe that we are actually supposed to take that as, "You know what we would've been great together but god damn men are so fucking hot that kinda ruins the lesbian thing." Plenty of friends and I have jokingly discussed that if we could actually choose our sexuality then we would actively choose not to be attracted to men and then immediately go, "But fuck them for being so attractive." I believe that's what they were trying to achieve with that statement but obviously it wasn't very successful.

Or the idea that "Men are so stupid that they can't understand the cosmic closeness of two women who are life-long friends and can only process that as lesbianism."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thing:

When RWP swims up to find her totally-not-blood-related-but-known-all-his-life-and-might-as-well-be-her-son on the barge of hedonism ©, she asks to take a drag off his cigarette. How the fuck did they get that cigarette there? And what did they light it with? That could not have been left on the dock like the airplane liquor bottles, it would have been so damp it would have never lit. Did he pack a ziplock with a single smoke and a lighter? If so where did he cram it so it wouldn't fall out when he swam there... that suit doesn't look like it has pockets to me. Did he use nature's pocket? I need answers.

 

39312266200_598b7df2a0_o.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thing:

When RWP swims up to find her totally-not-blood-related-but-known-all-his-life-and-might-as-well-be-her-son on the barge of hedonism ©, she asks to take a drag off his cigarette. How the fuck did they get that cigarette there? And what did they light it with? That could not have been left on the dock like the airplane liquor bottles, it would have been so damp it would have never lit. Did he pack a ziplock with a single smoke and a lighter? If so where did he cram it so it wouldn't fall out when he swam there... that suit doesn't look like it has pockets to me. Did he use nature's pocket? I need answers.

Okay now we're getting into the real questions!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think there is definitely a hedonistic bent to this story. When we first meet the gals they are running off to go swimming and climb onto their barge where they have a small stash of alcohol. They sip some rum and lay in the sun in-love with their life and maybe each other. Their life is simple and perfect. We revisit this time and time again in this movie - this idea that this place is a pleasure island of sorts. I especially think of the later scene where they are enjoying their new affairs and sunsoaked happy life when each boy announces that they would be retiring to their respective lovers bedroom. The ladies are shocked at the boldness of their sons attitudes about it--they're young and hot and want some fucking sex now--the women share a look, but they KNOW that each would be giving into their hedonistic desires and running off to fuck their young studs. That's some dirty bad hedonism right there I tellyouwhut.

 

I really think what this movie is trying to say... maybe in a clunky way... is that these women have such a strong kinship that they gave birth to each other's soul mates. They are indeed not "Lezzos." They are definitely sexually attracted to men, but really only need the relationship with each other (an island to themselves) and have no use for any other people. Therefore the boys are just their hedonistic, sexual fulfillment of their sisterly relationship. It's a way to having it all, in a kind of fucked up way.

 

I was going to say something similar. In some ways, it would have been easier had they been gay. Their sons are basically sexual surrogates for their own intense platonic love.

 

Btw - I referred to that raft as their “sin raft.” I’m still trying to figure it out all the details, but I feel like the ocean represented - what some might call - a “normal” sex life. When Roz’s husband comes home after being gone for awhile, he tells her the thing he missed most was the sound of the sea (i.e. sex with his wife). When the main characters float upon their raft, it represents a closeness as well as a separateness. They are both in ocean and not at the time. It represents how their relationships subvert traditional sexuality. The ocean - as metaphor for sexuality - also explains why Ian freaks out when his wife takes his daughter out of the ocean. He tells his wife “you’re scaring her.” He’s rebelling against puritanical preconceptions about sex. In this scenario, his wife represents society placing arbitrary taboos around sexuality. That is - you don’t think something is wrong or scary unless someone teaches you that it is. He’s saying there’s nothing to be afraid of.

 

That being said, the movie still ends on an ominous note. While the characters might be content with their situation, how do we the audience feel about it? Are we supportive or repulsed? What does that say about us?

 

I don’t know. Those are just my half-musings about it. As people have said over on Letterboxd, this movie’s biggest sin is being boring. It mistakes its languid pace for “Art.” It desperately wants to be taken as a serious work of art but lacks the finesse it would require to pull that off. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, though, it’s that there’s there’s a screenwriter out there right now ruefully laughing at all of us for not “getting it.”

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

What if this movie starred Brad Pitt and Matt Damon fucking each other's daughters?

 

"Did we do that?"

"They're young Goddesses."

 

I think we'd all have to register as sex offenders for even watching it!

The very first comment is a "what if..." scenario that I think speaks to why this was brought up.

I think it's more that the first comment in this board is someone suggesting that a movie made the other way around would be grounds for sex offender registration.

 

As I said, I get that the closeness of the characters is what makes Adore different. I just think that difference is negligible, on the whole. This isn't Jaime and Cersei Lannister -- we can call it "incestuous," but it's not actually incest.

 

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but Ultimate Trekker never brings up age. He brings up if it were men having sex with each other's daughters, which I do think is a fair comparison when the movie is about mothers having sex with each other's sons. I certainly didn’t get the impression that UT was advocating that such a film should be made, and I took the sex offender thing to be a joke.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'll just throw it out there one more time, you don't have to "what if" This movie pretty much already exists, it's called "Blame it on Rio" and I can't believe it still hasn't been done by the HDTGM crew.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but Ultimate Trekker never brings up age. He brings up if it were men and having sex with each other's daughters, which I do think is a fair comparison when the movie is about mothers having sex with each other's sons. I certainly didn’t get the impression that UT was advocating that such a film should be made, and I took the sex offender thing to be a joke.

Of course it's a joke, but it speaks to the double-standard in question.

 

Yeah, he didn't bring up the age difference. Fair enough. But part of the cringe-worthiness of the plot rests on the ages of these boys. If the boys were 35, and their mothers were 60, I don't think the reaction to their relationship dynamic would be the same, nor would anyone be making sex offender jokes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but Ultimate Trekker never brings up age. He brings up if it were men and having sex with each other's daughters, which I do think is a fair comparison when the movie is about mothers having sex with each other's sons. I certainly didn’t get the impression that UT was advocating that such a film should be made, and I took the sex offender thing to be a joke.

I also don't want to speak on behalf of TLP and why they made that post, but I took it not as an age nor a mother/son vs father/daughter relationship as much as no one seems to be making a stink about this movie like they would if it were men. To which TLP replied with plenty of movies where the genders have been reversed (Lolita being the best example in my opinion as that was a step-father/step-daughter scenario) that have been made time and time again with no stink. And I believe we all know that the sex offender comment was a joke, but that does inherently then mention age. We would be required to register if this had been men but not with this one because they are women is the way I took that joke.

 

EDIT: Obviously I could be reading into Ultimate Trekker's message all wrong. Re-reading it I am now wondering if they meant that the very nature of switching the genders would inadvertently make the message of the movie that much creepier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Of course it's a joke, but it speaks to the double-standard in question.

 

Yeah, he didn't bring up the age difference. Fair enough. But part of the cringe-worthiness of the plot rests on the ages of these boys whose lives are stalled by these relationships, if not totally derailed. If the boys were 35, and their mothers were 60, I don't think the reaction to their relationship dynamic would be the same.

 

Well, then you wouldn’t have a story either. :P/>

 

We’re *supposed* to feel uncomfortable. We’re not supposed to look at this and get warm-fuzzies from witnessing a mature love affair. Everyone behaves terribly. We’re supposed to be asking ourselves “Where’s the line?” It’s something even the characters point out. It’s a huge reason why the boys end up having girls. This isn’t a true story. That was a deliberate move on the writer’s part. It’s challenging us to face that double-standard head-on.

 

If you’re watching this movie and thinking, “isn’t this sweet” or “I don’t get what the problem is” then the movie fails even harder.

 

Ultimately, I’m just not cool with mother/father-figures having sex with son/daughter-figures, even if it is legally copacetic. It’s not an age thing, it’s a maturity thing. You can be 40 and immature as fuck. I don’t need to see parents scold their kids for not helping to clear the dinner table one second and then watch them have sex with them the next.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

We’re *supposed* to feel uncomfortable. We’re not supposed to look at this and get warm-fuzzies from witnessing a mature love affair. Everyone behaves terribly. We’re supposed to be asking ourselves “Where’s the line?” It’s something even the characters point out. It’s a huge reason why the boys end up having girls. This isn’t a true story. That was a deliberate move on the writer’s part. It’s challenging us to face that double-standard head-on.

 

If you’re watching this movie and thinking, “isn’t this sweet” or “I don’t get what the problem is” then the movie fails even harder.

I'm not saying that at all. Saying the reaction wouldn't be the same isn't saying the reaction would be "warm fuzziness." I don't want this movie to be different. This movie can be about whatever it wants to be. And I'm not saying that what they were doing wasn't taboo and a little creepy. All I disagree with is the notion that what we find creepy and "uncomfortable" here we would find criminal if the roles were flipped around ... that's all.

 

Let me throw an olive branch by saying that my wife and I tossed around the "what ifs" after watching this last night. Then, when I open the board this morning, boom, first comment. So maybe this was just a conversation I was ready and waiting for.

 

Having said all this, welcome to the board, Ultimate Trekker! Don't let this deter you from joining the fun :)

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a thing:

When RWP swims up to find her totally-not-blood-related-but-known-all-his-life-and-might-as-well-be-her-son on the barge of hedonism ©, she asks to take a drag off his cigarette. How the fuck did they get that cigarette there? And what did they light it with? That could not have been left on the dock like the airplane liquor bottles, it would have been so damp it would have never lit. Did he pack a ziplock with a single smoke and a lighter? If so where did he cram it so it wouldn't fall out when he swam there... that suit doesn't look like it has pockets to me. Did he use nature's pocket? I need answers.

There was an episode of King of the Hill where the gang gets stuck over-board away from shore and Dale saves them because he keeps an emergency cig and match in a Ziplock baggie ... so, there's precedent.

 

I'm more curious what that liquor tastes like after floating in sun-bathed salt water.

Share this post


Link to post

There was an episode of King of the Hill where the gang gets stuck over-board away from shore and Dale saves them because he keeps an emergency cig and match in a Ziplock baggie ... so, there's precedent.

 

I'm more curious what that liquor tastes like after floating in sun-bathed salt water.

 

KOTH is probably my favorite show, and I know exactly the episode... and I think Dale hides it in his hat. Also - Dale carries the loosey because he's comically addicted to smoking. BUT - I relent in that you are probably right. That guy (lets call him sexy son #1) knew he was going to want to hang out on the sin dock and would want a smoke when he got there, so perhaps he planned ahead. You'd think he would have just rolled a J and really gone for the gusto.

 

The tiny liquor bottles were probably cool-ish by being hidden in a dark, dank hidey hole... but yeah... that shit's probably nasty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I was going to say something similar. In some ways, it would have been easier had they been gay. Their sons are basically sexual surrogates for their own intense platonic love.

 

Not ONLY that - but the 2 sons each have a daughter with their "menopause beard" wives... so if the boys are sexual surrogates to NW and RWP, those daughters are their surrogate children with their borderline incestuous lovers, and by extension each other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The tiny liquor bottles were probably cool-ish by being hidden in a dark, dank hidey hole... but yeah... that shit's probably nasty.

 

I also don’t think 12-year-olds drink because it tastes good. They drink because it makes them feel good and it’s...taboo. ;)

 

We might as well rename the sin dock the metaphor raft.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm not saying that at all. Saying the reaction wouldn't be the same isn't saying the reaction would be "warm fuzziness." I don't want this movie to be different. This movie can be about whatever it wants to be. And I'm not saying that what they were doing wasn't taboo and a little creepy. All I disagree with is the notion that what we find creepy and "uncomfortable" here we would find criminal if the roles were flipped around ... that's all.

 

Let me throw an olive branch by saying that my wife and I tossed around the "what ifs" after watching this last night. Then, when I open the board this morning, boom, first comment. So maybe this was just a conversation I was ready and waiting for.

 

Having said all this, welcome to the board, Ultimate Trekker! Don't let this deter you from joining the fun :)/>/>

 

I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to suggest that you specifically were saying it should be “warm and fuzzy.” In a way, I think we’re arguing the same point. The movie is what it is. I just meant that the movie is supposed to make us uncomfortable. And, at least for me, and I believe intentionally, that discomfort comes from the pseudo-incest, not the age difference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
I was going to say something similar. In some ways, it would have been easier had they been gay. Their sons are basically sexual surrogates for their own intense platonic love. Btw - I referred to that raft as their “sin raft.” I’m still trying to figure it out all the details, but I feel like the ocean represented - what some might call - a “normal” sex life. When Roz’s husband comes home after being gone for awhile, he tells her the thing he missed most was the sound of the sea (i.e. sex with his wife). When the main characters float upon their raft, it represents a closeness and a separateness. They are both in it and not at the time. It represents how their relationships are subverting traditional sexuality. The ocean as metaphor for sexuality also explains why Ian freaks out when his wife takes his daughter out of the ocean. He tells his wife “you’re scaring her.” He’s rebelling against puritanical preconceptions about sex. In this scenario, his wife represents society placing arbitrary taboos around sexuality. That is - you don’t think something is wrong or scary unless someone teaches you that it is. That being said, the movie still ends on an ominous note. While the characters might be content with their situation, how do we the audience feel about it? Are we supportive or repulsed? What does that say about us? I don’t know. Those are just my half-musings about it. As people have said over on Letterboxd, this movie’s biggest sin is being boring. It mistakes its languid pace for “Art.” It wants desperately to be taken as a serious work of art but doesn’t lacks the finesse it would require to pull that off. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, though, it’s that there’s there’s a screenwriter out there right now ruefully laughing at all of us for not “getting it.”

#1 - the theme of this movie really could be "wouldn't our life be easier if we were just lezzos"

#2 - I'm totally with you that the water imagery is sexually based. I also think it is literally shows them being an isolated island onto themselves... they are socially self-reliant and don't need anyone else besides each other (and their respective sons so they can get that sweet, sweet D) but are actually fulfilled by their own platonic intimacy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to suggest you specifically were saying it should be “warm and fuzzy.” In a way, I think we’re arguing the same point. The movie is what it is. I just meant that the movie is supposed to make us uncomfortable. And, at least for me, and I believe intentionally, that discomfort comes from the pseudo-incest, not the age difference.

 

Interestingly enough, it did not make me uncomfortable. When they started getting with the boys I was screaming at my TV "Yeah gurl... You GET your groove back!"

tenor.gif?itemid=4649095

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So having finished the episode I was amazed that these relationships were being called incestual, since there was no blood relation shared between either couple. Yes it is very odd that what is basically now a big trend in porn was made into a serious dramatic film with A-list actresses, but it wasn't full-on incest. Now if it they had tried to make a bigger shock at the end where the two couples became a quad and there was mother-son relation, I honestly would not have been surprised due to how lackadaisical the leads were with how they were going about their coupling. Also, one thing that was kinda glossed over in regards to how they can live these seemingly care-free lives at this expensive looking home on the beach was that the dead husband apparently left Naomi Watts a hefty life insurance policy along with some other type of inheritance, which was a bigger part of the novella.

 

And was anyone else waiting for after the kids were taken away by the wives for one of the sons to say, "THANK GOD! Now those that thing I made by accident with that chick is gone, I can get back to my true love."?

Share this post


Link to post

We’re *supposed* to feel uncomfortable. We’re not supposed to look at this and get warm-fuzzies from witnessing a mature love affair. Everyone behaves terribly. We’re supposed to be asking ourselves “Where’s the line?” It’s something even the characters point out. It’s a huge reason why the boys end up having girls. This isn’t a true story. That was a deliberate move on the writer’s part. It’s challenging us to face that double-standard head-on.

Genuine question: Are we supposed to be uncomfortable? Are we supposed wonder where the line is?

 

That would at least given the movie a purpose. That might explain why the movie has practically no plot or other characters or why things continually escalate with literally zero payoff or repercussions (losing the grandchildren is but no one in the movie cares).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So having finished the episode I was amazed that these relationships were being called incestual, since there was no blood relation shared between either couple. Yes it is very odd that what is basically now a big trend in porn was made into a serious dramatic film with A-list actresses, but it wasn't full-on incest. Now if it they had tried to make a bigger shock at the end where the two couples became a quad and there was mother-son relation, I honestly would not have been surprised due to how lackadaisical the leads were with how they were going about their coupling. Also, one thing that was kinda glossed over in regards to how they can live these seemingly care-free lives at this expensive looking home on the beach was that the dead husband apparently left Naomi Watts a hefty life insurance policy along with some other type of inheritance, which was a bigger part of the novella.

 

And was anyone else waiting for after the kids were taken away by the wives for one of the sons to say, "THANK GOD! Now those that thing I made by accident with that chick is gone, I can get back to my true love."?

 

Let’s not all get hung up on strict Meriam-Webster definitions. It’s just being used as a word to connote “uncomfortably close.” No one is suggesting it’s actual incest. The thing is, the set up to the whole thing is that these women are so close that they’ve basically co-parented their sons. Even before sex happens, they appear to be double-dating their sons. It’s not illegal, just weird.

 

If I can bring up Woody Allen again. Marrying his adopted daughter isn’t “incest” but it’s definitely “incestual.” Same thing here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I knew this movie was going to be "good" when I saw just how many damn production companies were involved. That's something I learned from HDTGM. It seemed like it was six minutes before it got to the actual opening credits.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

On the episode, I think they only covered that the movie was based on Doris Lessing's novella "The Grandmothers" and didn't mention that Lessing has said her story was based on true events that she heard happened in a small community in Australia.

 

Also, Kulap mentioned that she watched this movie at Sundance. I wonder if she remembered the audience laughing during the movie? According to this article the movie was...not received well (and I do feel a bit bad for the director).

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dudes... I figured out who wrote this movie.

https://youtu.be/FCHZqT3mR5I?t=9

(Because you probably didn't watch it)

Rosemary (Carrie Fisher):

"OK, let's find a pen and start that screenplay. This movie is going to knock them on their asses!"

Liz (Tina Fey):

"Right... what's it about?"

Rosemary:

"Women in their 50's join the army, and get laid by a bunch of grateful 18 year olds."

Liz:

"Oh god"

Rosemary:

"Yea, exactly. I predict opening week...a million dollars!"

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Genuine question: Are we supposed to be uncomfortable? Are we supposed wonder where the line is?

 

That would at least given the movie a purpose. That might explain why the movie has practically no plot or other characters or why things continually escalate with literally zero payoff or repercussions (losing the grandchildren is but no one in the movie cares).

 

I mean, Roz literally says “we’ve crossed a line.” I don’t know why you’d have that line in your movie if not to suggest *some* line has been crossed. :)/>

 

But this is why it’s so important that both women/sons are in concurrent relationships. We’re supposed to judge them against one another. Ian, while immature, seems to genuinely love Roz. Tom, on the other hand (somehow even more immature) only goes for Lil to get back at Ian. They are essentially the Goofus and Gallant of quasi-incest.

 

The next dilemma is with Mary. Once we get more or less get accustomed to the dynamics, Tom cheats on Lil. But is that for the best? The mothers seem to think so - albeit Roz more readily than Lil. But, more importantly, what do you think? Is it fair to preemptively break it off with Ian based on the assumption that he’ll eventually want to leave Roz? Is the comfort of normalcy worth the heartache? For all the talk of how similar the characters are, where and how they differ is significant.

 

I would say, in its pretentious way, the character that goes on the biggest journey throughout the movie is the audience. Every new situation requires us to reevaluate how we feel. “Oh, now that you’re cool with the mother and son thing, what if we showed you the son’s had daughters? How do you feel now?” This is definitely a movie that requires an engaged viewer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On the episode, I think they only covered that the movie was based on Doris Lessing's novella "The Grandmothers" and didn't mention that Lessing has said her story was based on true events that she heard happened in a small community in Australia.

 

Also, Kulap mentioned that she watched this movie at Sundance. I wonder if she remembered the audience laughing during the movie? According to this article the movie was...not received well (and I do feel a bit bad for the director).

 

I will say this...I didn’t like this movie, but I don’t exactly think it’s a bad movie. I definitely *felt* something (discomfort mainly) so it didn’t exactly fail artistically - at least not for me. Now, would I watch it again? Oh, God no.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×