The Graduate

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

15 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

I would say that the movie is about how conforming to societal pressure and expectations often leads to unhappiness, but just because you rebel against conformity, doesn’t guarantee happiness either.

We see this in the pressure Ben is under regarding school, career, and wife. Mrs. Robinson represents the decay of happiness by succumbing to this pressure (she got married because she got pregnant) and what Ben’s future might hold if he doesn’t take control. 

And I think it's very specifically about the generation gap between the Greatest Generation of WW2 and the Baby Boomers. The former had imposed a society of values and conformity, and the latter was rebelling against it for individual freedom. People like Nichols and Hoffman were kind of in between these generations, and the movie reflects that: it understands the desire for rebellion but also cautions against rebellion for rebellion's sake.

[grudlian. 4725]

34 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

But we seem to have flipped places from Letterboxd. How do you like the movie so much if it's all based around unaddressed sexual predation?  What comment is it making? If it's simply "embrace the moments" -- does sexual predation count?  What makes this story good? 

Keeping in mind I don't particularly like this movie, I think what is here in the movie is interesting. I don't know that it needs to pick a side to come down on. I don't think it needs to comment on anything. I think it has some great character moments and the way characters clash whether that's generation, society, gender, experienced/naive, etc. I think it's presenting a lot of good stuff. I don't think it needs to judge the characters or their actions. I think the is enough here to enjoy even if it's not explicitly condemning the characters.

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

17 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

Neither one of them want to actually end up with the other and that relationship knows it's going to be doomed if they continue on.

Right, and that's why I like the ending the best out of anything. I know why she went with him, to escape. My question still goes back to "why Ben?" because she can run out on that wedding without him too, no?  She still does, even momentarily, choose him.  I'm sure she'll run out as soon as that bus hits the next stop sign. But I'm not sure if it's enough for me here, that's what I'm struggling with.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

The other thing I'll say in favor of this film (Paul notes it too) is that the visual presentation and use of music has its fingerprints all over every coming-of-age movie in the decades since. It feels like John Hughes and Wes Anderson took notes while watching this. It's just so undeniably influential.

I don't think I'd watched the whole thing in widescreen before. I originally saw it pan-and-scanned on VHS. Getting to see the whole shot composition makes a pretty big difference.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

1 minute ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Right, and that's why I like the ending the best out of anything. I know why she went with him, to escape. My question still goes back to "why Ben?" because she can run out on that wedding without him too, no?  She still does, even momentarily, choose him.  I'm sure she'll run out as soon as that bus hits the next stop sign. But I'm not sure if it's enough for me here, that's what I'm struggling with.

The parents have probably imposed upon her their own values that the only way for a woman to proceed after college was to get married. Sometimes you need some guy to crash your wedding and cause a big disruption to get shaken out of that mindset.

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

Just now, sycasey 2.0 said:

The parents have probably imposed upon her their own values that the only way for a woman to proceed after college was to get married. Sometimes you need some guy to crash your wedding and cause a big disruption to get shaken out of that mindset.

Probably, yea though I feel like this sort of reads things in to get the answer we want here, a bit. But that's fine, it's just a stylistic difference in criticism.

I think Paul said he wasn't watching this about 'the times' or anything, just purely about a guy, which maybe that's the best thing for me to try to do.

I don't know, I'm not even sure anymore what I'm trying to say. I feel like the more I think about it, the more muddled I believe it to be, even if we can micro-focus on particular scenes and find clarity in those - the sum total is messy. I'll just leave it at that.

[LawrenceFutol 5]

3 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

And I think it's very specifically about the generation gap between the Greatest Generation of WW2 and the Baby Boomers. The former had imposed a society of values and conformity, and the latter was rebelling against it for individual freedom. People like Nichols and Hoffman were kind of in between these generations, and the movie reflects that: it understands the desire for rebellion but also cautions against rebellion for rebellion's sake.

After reading Mark Harris' great book Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood, about the five movies nominated for Best Picture of 1967, I think that's the reason The Graduate was embraced by the youth, despite not being If you look at the movies made by Hollywood that did comment about the counterculture, they were very condescending and judgemental. "These crazy kids with their long hair, loud music!" Hippies were figures of ridicule at best and dangerous drug-crazed monsters at worst. The Graduate was the first mainstream movie that showed it was the older generation who was corrupt and materialistic. Their values were shallow and amoral. It's why the college rejected Stanley Kramer's Guess Who's Coming To Dinner despite it interracial romance. They didn't like that Sidney Poitier had to ask permission from Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, his white fiancee's parents before marrying her. They didn't care about a story of an old liberal overcoming his own prejudices to accept him. They would have preferred the couple eloped and didn't give a damn what her parents thought.

2 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

The parents have probably imposed upon her their own values that the only way for a woman to proceed after college was to get married. Sometimes you need some guy to crash your wedding and cause a big disruption to get shaken out of that mindset.

Benjamin, despite being a complete mess of a human being  was a hero for saving Elaine and taking away from the fate of being like her mother. Will they stay together? Probably not. That's the thing I take away from the final shot. The future is now uncertain. Elaine is scared but Benjamin is free.

 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

12 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

Right, and that's why I like the ending the best out of anything. I know why she went with him, to escape. My question still goes back to "why Ben?" because she can run out on that wedding without him too, no?  She still does, even momentarily, choose him.  I'm sure she'll run out as soon as that bus hits the next stop sign. But I'm not sure if it's enough for me here, that's what I'm struggling with.

I think up until that moment she would've been fine doing whatever it was her parents told her to do, despite that not being what she wanted. It could've been literally any man banging on that window for her to stop and she would've run off with them.

[Autastic 125]

Speaking of Graduate sequels, it's a shame we never got the REAL Graduate 2.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

4 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

I don't know, I'm not even sure anymore what I'm trying to say. I feel like the more I think about it, the more muddled I believe it to be, even if we can micro-focus on particular scenes and find clarity in those - the sum total is messy. I'll just leave it at that.

I mean . . . maybe the uncertainty is what it's about?

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

30 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I mean . . . maybe the uncertainty is what it's about?

That'd be convenient 

[bleary 333]

4 hours ago, grudlian. said:

I think it's kind of weird that Paul and Amy kind of gloss over that Mrs. Robinson is basically a sexual predator in this. They mention Benjamin being prey but they also talk about how sexy and confidant she is repeatedly. I get Benjamin it's old enough to make his own decisions but she's still twice his age and he's very clearly saying no to her at every step of the way. I was really grossed out by it.

Honestly, I didn't even consider this as a potential problem until I read your comment, which absolutely is a gender double-standard because I'd certainly feel the same way as you if the genders were swapped.  However, I don't entire agree about the extent of Mrs. Robinson's misconduct.  Certainly, when she corners Ben in Elaine's room and exposes herself to him, this is clearly sexual assault.  But I do feel that in everything that happens after Benjamin leaves the house that night, he has complete agency.  Sure, she is psychologically manipulative, but he's not a child.  He's 20/21 years old, of sound mind.  She isn't threatening him, there's no power imbalance.  He is capable of making the decision he does, and I think to put it all on Mrs. Robinson as a predator is to bend-over-backwards to forgive Benjamin's share of the blame (if there even is any blame to give).

That said, I agree with everyone here that it's clear Mrs. Robinson is interested in Ben because she thinks she can get what she wants with him (which I was almost literally screaming at the podcast when Amy wondered what she saw in him).  She's not going after those other seemingly fun guys because she already knows how Benjamin will act, having known him for many years.  And it's not only that she knows what to say to persuade him, but that she knows that he's more likely to appreciate her both as a virgin/pseudo-virgin and as someone who might have gawked at her pubescently for the better part of a decade.  So I don't think their relationship is at all gross, although it was preceded by a gross act (the flashing scene) and followed by a gross act (the rape accusation).

But that's my opinion as someone who mostly agreed with Amy in this episode and who largely agreed with Roger Ebert's re-review, so I might be a Mrs. Robinson apologist.  (Part of it may be my annoyance that 34-36 year old Anne Bancroft doesn't get enough credit for plausibly playing 10-15 years above her own age better than Dustin Hoffman could play 6-8 years below his own age.  Bancroft's performance truly blew me away on this rewatch.)

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

3 minutes ago, bleary said:

(Part of it may be my annoyance that 34-36 year old Anne Bancroft doesn't get enough credit for plausibly playing 10-15 years above her own age better than Dustin Hoffman could play 6-8 years below his own age.  Bancroft's performance truly blew me away on this rewatch.)

I was impressed that despite there not being a big real-life age difference between the actors, the difference between the on-screen characters seemed totally believable to me. Usually that doesn't work.

[Cameron H. 23786]

30 minutes ago, bleary said:

Sure, she is psychologically manipulative, but he's not a child.  He's 20/21 years old, of sound mind.

But what if I were to say, “Yes, her 40-year-old family friend locked her in a bedroom and exposed himself to her, but she’s 20! She knew what she was doing...” Him being 20 just makes it not statutory rape, and just because he calls Mrs. R doesn’t mean he’s not still being manipulated. That’s why she’s okay with letting him go the first time. She knows that he’ll call her. She’s counting on it.

Also, I don’t think Ben necessarily is “of sound mind.” I’m not saying he’s crazy, but he is very much adrift and vulnerable. 

As far as power dynamics, no she isn’t threatening to not hire him for a job or anything, but she knows he’s a low frame of mind and knows that his family, and later Elaine, would be upset if they ever find out what’s going on. She uses his fear of discovery and their disapproval against him to get what she wants. And when he tries to assert control by telling Elaine what happened, she says he raped her.

[bleary 333]

3 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

But what if I were to say, “Yes, her 40-year-old family friend locked her in a bedroom and exposed himself to her, but she’s 20! She knew what she was doing...”

This is a slight misrepresentation of my remarks, since I made it clear that the scene where she exposes herself is sexual assault.  Now if you swap the genders, I feel the same way.  If, in this swapped case, after the man sexually harassed the 20-year-old woman in this way, she then calls the man inviting him to meet with her at a hotel, I would say that yes, she is making the decision to do that.

[Cameron H. 23786]

30 minutes ago, bleary said:

This is a slight misrepresentation of my remarks, since I made it clear that the scene where she exposes herself is sexual assault.  Now if you swap the genders, I feel the same way.  If, in this swapped case, after the man sexually harassed the 20-year-old woman in this way, she then calls the man inviting him to meet with her at a hotel, I would say that yes, she is making the decision to do that.

And my point is, just because a person makes the call themselves at a later point, doesn’t mean they aren’t still being manipulated. It’s kind of like how the best conmen trick you into thinking that whatever they want you to do is your idea. She knows the state of mind he’s in and she knows what to do and what to say to get her desired result. No, she doesn’t rape him, but she definitely manipulates him into thinking something that he believes to be fundamentally wrong - something he has already said “no” to multiple times and even calls “gross” - might be okay. That’s not what he has always thought; it’s what she’s made him think. And when he starts to doubt it, she uses other tactics to keep him in line.

[bleary 333]

2 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

And my point is, just because a person makes the call themselves, doesn’t mean they aren’t still being manipulated. It’s kind of like how the best conmen trick you into thinking that whatever they want you to do is your idea. She knows the state of mind he’s in and she knows what to do and say to get her desired result. No, she doesn’t rape him, but she definitely manipulates him into thinking that something he believes to be fundamentally wrong - something he has already said “no” to multiple times - might be okay. That’s not what he has always thought; it’s what she’s made him think. And when he starts to doubt it, she uses other tactics to keep him in line.

Haha, I also don't have much sympathy for people who fall for conmen!  Again, I'm not denying that she can be seen as manipulative, I said so in my first post.  

Now, does he believe it to be fundamentally wrong?  I really don't think so, I think this is a case where he's parroting what he believes society would prescribe him to say.  At any rate, how fundamental a belief can it be if he allows himself to be goaded into it by a small challenge of his sexual prowess?

The fact that he says "no" repeatedly, this is something that seems worse without the context.  I completely agree that on its face, construed as "refusing to take 'no' for an answer", this seems gross.  However, the way the first hotel room scene plays out, Mrs. Robinson isn't really refusing to take "no" for an answer.  For one thing, he goes up alone and closes all the blinds, which shows that he intends to sleep with her.  When she arrives, he initiates the kiss and participates in undressing her before changing his mind when he thinks about his parents.  She asks why he's afraid of what they would think, and then asks if he's afraid of her.  After seeing his responses, she asks if it's his first time, and reaches to start putting her clothes back on and leave, and then he stops her from dressing.  I don't understand how she is predatory at all in this scene.  She is willing to take his "no" for an answer, though she wants to know why.  Then in the process of discussing why, he voluntarily changes his "no" to a "yes".

I understand that if her brazen misconduct in the earlier scene in Elaine's bedroom colors your feelings about her behavior about all the rest of their interactions, but that's not at all how I feel about it.  He called her because he did want her.  He waited at the hotel for her because he wanted her.  When she gets there, she asks if he's gotten a room.  When he says no, she asks, "Do you want to?"  (Perhaps that's a bit leading, but not exactly coercive.)  He seems unsure and suggests just talking first, and she asks, "Do you want me to get it?" (This could be seen as manipulatively poking at his patriarchal sense of duty, but it can also be read as her offering because she thinks he's worried about dealing with the clerk.)  When he says that he'll get it, she asks if he wants to get it now.  He stammers for a second, and she suggests, "Why don't you get it now?"  So sure, she prods him to action, but he doesn't say that he doesn't want to do any of it.  I just don't see how she's villainous in any way here unless you're already painting her as a villain from the earlier scene.

[Cameron H. 23786]

1 hour ago, bleary said:

Haha, I also don't have much sympathy for people who fall for conmen!  Again, I'm not denying that she can be seen as manipulative, I said so in my first post.  

Now, does he believe it to be fundamentally wrong?  I really don't think so, I think this is a case where he's parroting what he believes society would prescribe him to say.  At any rate, how fundamental a belief can it be if he allows himself to be goaded into it by a small challenge of his sexual prowess?

The fact that he says "no" repeatedly, this is something that seems worse without the context.  I completely agree that on its face, construed as "refusing to take 'no' for an answer", this seems gross.  However, the way the first hotel room scene plays out, Mrs. Robinson isn't really refusing to take "no" for an answer.  For one thing, he goes up alone and closes all the blinds, which shows that he intends to sleep with her.  When she arrives, he initiates the kiss and participates in undressing her before changing his mind when he thinks about his parents.  She asks why he's afraid of what they would think, and then asks if he's afraid of her.  After seeing his responses, she asks if it's his first time, and reaches to start putting her clothes back on and leave, and then he stops her from dressing.  I don't understand how she is predatory at all in this scene.  She is willing to take his "no" for an answer, though she wants to know why.  Then in the process of discussing why, he voluntarily changes his "no" to a "yes".

I understand that if her brazen misconduct in the earlier scene in Elaine's bedroom colors your feelings about her behavior about all the rest of their interactions, but that's not at all how I feel about it.  He called her because he did want her.  He waited at the hotel for her because he wanted her.  When she gets there, she asks if he's gotten a room.  When he says no, she asks, "Do you want to?"  (Perhaps that's a bit leading, but not exactly coercive.)  He seems unsure and suggests just talking first, and she asks, "Do you want me to get it?" (This could be seen as manipulatively poking at his patriarchal sense of duty, but it can also be read as her offering because she thinks he's worried about dealing with the clerk.)  When he says that he'll get it, she asks if he wants to get it now.  He stammers for a second, and she suggests, "Why don't you get it now?"  So sure, she prods him to action, but he doesn't say that he doesn't want to do any of it.  I just don't see how she's villainous in any way here unless you're already painting her as a villain from the earlier scene.

I don’t see her as “villainous” exactly. Certainly not at that point in the movie. I think she’s a sad woman. And I think Ben is sad. The only reason I’ve been discussing any of this is because, as Grudlian stated, it wasn’t brought up in the podcast, and I agree with him that that is unfortunate as it’s definitely an angle worth being explored - especially as it relates to our contemporary context.

There are layers and nuance going on in this movie, and painting any one character as either all good or all bad is pretty myopic. I’m just pointing out that her actions in the film do come off as predatory. 

As far as his fundamental beliefs and whatever, when he says “no,” that should be it. When he delivers the famous “You’re trying to seduce me line” she turns it back on him and embarrasses him, even though she knows that’s exactly what she’s doing - effectively taking control of the situation. 

Like, I’d have no issue if Mrs R went up to Ben and was like, “Yo! You DTF?” and he was like, “Yuppers.” But that’s not how it’s presented in the movie. I have an issue with trying to say the relationship is 100% consensual and no big deal when that’s not what the movie shows us. In fact, much of the first part of the movie is him debating whether what they’re doing is “right.”

[grudlian. 4725]

1 hour ago, bleary said:

Honestly, I didn't even consider this as a potential problem until I read your comment, which absolutely is a gender double-standard because I'd certainly feel the same way as you if the genders were swapped.  However, I don't entire agree about the extent of Mrs. Robinson's misconduct.  Certainly, when she corners Ben in Elaine's room and exposes herself to him, this is clearly sexual assault.  But I do feel that in everything that happens after Benjamin leaves the house that night, he has complete agency.  Sure, she is psychologically manipulative, but he's not a child.  He's 20/21 years old, of sound mind.  She isn't threatening him, there's no power imbalance.  He is capable of making the decision he does, and I think to put it all on Mrs. Robinson as a predator is to bend-over-backwards to forgive Benjamin's share of the blame (if there even is any blame to give).

That said, I agree with everyone here that it's clear Mrs. Robinson is interested in Ben because she thinks she can get what she wants with him (which I was almost literally screaming at the podcast when Amy wondered what she saw in him).  She's not going after those other seemingly fun guys because she already knows how Benjamin will act, having known him for many years.  And it's not only that she knows what to say to persuade him, but that she knows that he's more likely to appreciate her both as a virgin/pseudo-virgin and as someone who might have gawked at her pubescently for the better part of a decade.  So I don't think their relationship is at all gross, although it was preceded by a gross act (the flashing scene) and followed by a gross act (the rape accusation).

But that's my opinion as someone who mostly agreed with Amy in this episode and who largely agreed with Roger Ebert's re-review, so I might be a Mrs. Robinson apologist.  (Part of it may be my annoyance that 34-36 year old Anne Bancroft doesn't get enough credit for plausibly playing 10-15 years above her own age better than Dustin Hoffman could play 6-8 years below his own age.  Bancroft's performance truly blew me away on this rewatch.)

I think she's doing grooming behavior that a lot of child molesters do. Ask for something innocent like a ride home, then up the stakes a bit every time they finally agree.

I admit that Ben is old enough and intelligent enough. But I think he's not emotionally intelligent enough. Maybe he's just socially awkward but he seemed emotionally stunted to me (not that I have any credentials to dismiss that).

I don't like getting too far into the gender reversal since it's 1. a reliable dog whistle for men's rights activists and 2. ignoring the difference in power dynamics between the genders. So, there isn't a 1:1 comparison in my mind but, as Cameron has said and you've acknowledged, we probably would react differently if they were reversed.

Despite all that, I also think the movie wants the audience to think this is initially what Benjamin wants and is good for him. Mrs. Robinson is a matronly version of a manic pixie dream girl. Benjamin secretly wants a woman, any woman, to come on to him because he's incapable of being the man he wants to be. So, even though he verbally says no, I think he wants it to happen (and I'm very aware of how dangerous this all is but I think the movie intends us to think it).

[grudlian. 4725]

Also, as Cameron said, I don't think anyone is a villain or evil in this movie even though she is sexually assaulting Benjamin in my mind. I just wish this had been addressed. They mention Benjamin being creepy but Mrs. Robinson gets a tossed off "Ben is prey" but gets a lot of "sexy and confident"

[pemvapor 6]

AMY and PAUL!!!!!! Are you kidding? (Hang on, let me catch my breath. I was shouting at you in the car ride home from work. In all fairness, I haven't finished listening to the episode, but I was losing my mind about a little part I just heard. Here we go....)

With respect to the whole issue of why Mrs. R chose Benjamin --- how can you say it doesn't make sense and that there's no legitimate character-based reason why should would do so? There are a bunch and I think -- if anything -- they're too obvious:

1. She expects that he'll be easy to control and manipulate. (Which turns out to be the case.) (Well, for a while, anyway.) She will be entirely in charge and she'll call the shots.
2. He'll be uncomplicated. This isn't someone with a family of his own, a wife, a job that will get in the way and distract him. He's basic -- as basic as they come, in fact.
3. (with regard to how apparent it should be that he won't be a big stud in bed) That's no problem for her. In fact, it might be better; she'll train him. She'll get him to do whatever she wants, and however she wants him to do it.
4. Though I don't think she's conscious of this one, I think she wants to ruin a young person, to sully him. She has a jealousy, or envy, of Elaine's youth, and this guy presents himself, just back from college. Young and blank, with (by all accounts) a bright future ahead of him. She can do something about that, about those nice, shiny kids who think the world holds so much promise, and is going to treat them so well. Nuh-uh, she thinks, based on how things have turned out for her. And she will damn-well teach this guy how tawdry and empty the world is. She'll make a convert of him.

I could go on, with other reasons (I've seen this at least 40 or 50 times.) But I think the main reason is that she expects to be able to manipulate him and get him to do as she pleases. She'll be in charge, something she doesn't feel is the case in so many other areas of her life.

(Sorry for aggression there at the beginning. I hold both of you in high regard and love what you have to say on the podcast. I have a screenwriting background and work in a film high school. Love it, love film analysis. I have to say -- I thought I was hallucinating when I heard you say that there's no real and clear explanation for what she would see in him. Really, guys???)

(A & P: feel free to PM me and yell back at me. I can talk about The Graduate forever.)

[bleary 333]

1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

I have an issue with trying to say the relationship is 100% consensual and no big deal when that’s not what the movie shows us. In fact, much of the first part of the movie is him debating whether what they’re doing is “right.”

I think we've essentially reached an impasse on this point, but I will say that the fact that he debates whether or not it's "right" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's consensual.  It seems that we are disagreeing on the amount of agency that Benjamin has when he decides to follow through, but the issues of his agency and his internal debate about the morality of it are very separate issues.  If someone has misgivings about committing a crime and they still do it, their misgivings don't grant them pardon.  (False equivalence? Maybe, but hopefully you see my point.)

1 hour ago, grudlian. said:

I just wish this had been addressed. They mention Benjamin being creepy but Mrs. Robinson gets a tossed off "Ben is prey" but gets a lot of "sexy and confident"

You're absolutely right about this, because as I said before, I hadn't considered just how vile the first scene at her house is until you pointed it out.  I really honed in on Benjamin's creepy pursuit of Elaine on this rewatch while completely ignoring the parallel with Mrs. Robinson's pursuit of Benjamin.  So again, while I'll agree to disagree on Ben's level of agency in the consummation part of the relationship, I'm still happy that you and Cameron and Taylor brought it up, because it's a great point that deserved to have been discussed on the podcast.

[FictionIsntReal 79]

This is one of the most overrated movies I can recall seeing. I suppose the directing/editing are more interesting than Last Picture Show (which had few redeeming qualities), but Benjamin is a boring character that I can't get invested in. The later Ebert strikes me as correct, and I have to conclude the film was so popular simply because people went deranged in the late 60s. I can't think of any other explanation for why Altman's M*A*S*H was more successful than Nichols' Catch-22 (which is also far better than this film). I'd like to thank you for those Nichols & May clips. because they were also more entertaining than this movie.

Amy mentions that Hoffman sometimes sounds like a robot when talking to Mrs. Robinson. Another critic writes "Today, we might call Benjamin an Aspergery nerd, a depressive, and an obsessive-compulsive stalker" (suggesting that he drew from his experiences working in a mental hospital, as he did when making Rain Man), but I don't know if anyone was grasping toward that back then. People did talk about a "generation gap", which was news to Nichols, who claims that never occurred to him while he was making the film.

People above are talking about sexual assault, but this isn't really an example of that. He's an adult and he voluntarily participates in it, even if he rejects her initial overtures.

[Cameron H. 23786]

1 hour ago, bleary said:

I think we've essentially reached an impasse on this point, but I will say that the fact that he debates whether or not it's "right" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's consensual.

I agree that we’re just not going to see eye to eye on this and that’s fine. Sometimes that’s just how it goes.  

However, if I may, I guess my thing with “consensual” sex is that if either partner ever has any doubts, no matter what the reason, then it’s not 100% consensual. He can be attracted to her and enjoy having sex with and still not want to have sex with her. In fact, that’s a very common problem - especially among young people who are trying to figure their shit out. So if he says, “I don’t want to do this,” then that should be it. But it’s not. She uses his indecision and doubt to manipulate him. 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

That was a really great conversation that I've read between all of y'all. I honestly don't have anything else to add (yet lol) because I feel like Cameron and Grudlian really captured my feelings exactly.

I forgot that I wanted to mention that I haven't seen this movie in quite some time, definitely it was before the Me Too movement started, and at the time I loooved this movie. Legit understood the hype and why it was one of the most talked about, and most quoted movies of our time, but now thinking back on it I really don't think this holds up as well under a new societal light. Even when I loved it at the time (genuinely think I saw this in college and it's already been 8 years since then) I can't say that I really thought about it much at all after about a year out from seeing it. It's one of those movies that I think you see and may fall in love with and then just like Elaine and Ben in the back of that bus you kinda lose that excitement and stop smiling about it.

Originally I voted that this shouldn't be on the list, just because I think there are now better movies that can cover similar topics while also making better and more clear statements about the main protagonist, but I'm kind of waffling on that gut reaction. I do still like this movie, but I also know that I don't have the same feelings about it as I did when I was younger.