BEFORE: Relationships are tricky sometimes, and categorizing movies about relationships can be even trickier. I devote a whole month-plus every February to this topic - well, love in all its forms, really - and to keep the linking alive at the same time, I've been forced to expand the scope of the topic, and I've justified that by saying there's a down side to love sometimes, so films about "bad" or "unhappy" relationships have made the cut, like "The Boy Next Door" or "Swimfan". I went back and forth on "Swimfan" a couple times, it was in, it was out, and the bottom line was that it wasn't getting watched as a result. So in the end it was in.
Now I face the flip-side of that dilemma, with another film that showcases an "unhealthy" relationship, it does connect to one other film on the romance/relationships list, so maybe I should save it for February - but just having one link is not really enough, most films need TWO to keep the chain going. And I need it here to make the right total for the year, so I guess it's OUT of the February chain plans. I'll table one other film with Anna Kendrick for February because it's more love-based, but I'm also kind of leaving it stranded now, there's no way to link out of it - but that would have still been the case if I'd saved this one for February, I'd have an extra film on the list but still no connecting link.
So two very big factors place this film in September instead - it's taking up space on my DVR, I need to free up some room, and with Anna Kendrick with the only star actor in the film, it needs to go between two other films with her in them. Problem solved, for now, anyway. Anna Kendrick carries over from "Rocket Science".
THE PLOT: A young woman trapped in an abusive relationship becomes the unwitting participant in an intervention staged by her two closest friends.
AFTER: It's a very curious film, because the abuse depicted (or rather, mostly NOT depicted) is mostly emotional and psychological, over time, and thus it's harder for the audience to envision than physical abuse, or outright stalking, or other things seen in such films as "The Boy Next Door" or "Sleeping with the Enemy" or even "Swimfan". How do you depict something that you can't see outright? You have to resort to a form of "tell, don't show" which is somewhat counter to the rules of filmmaking, a very visual medium. So as a result there may be people confused in the audience, unable to see the abuse at all, and left wondering what the fuss was all about.
So you may have to dig a little deeper here to see it, but it's abuse in the form of control, and manipulation through words and emotions, but once you see it, you can't un-see it. Alice's boyfriend advises her to not eat potato chips, for example, because they're "full of saturated fats" and she'll regret it when she steps on the scale the next morning. Not cool, because he's manage to assault both her freedom to eat whatever she wants AND make her self-conscious about her weight, which could trigger an eating disorder. (Note: this effect can be amplified if you JUST watched a movie with Anna Kendrick made in 2007 when she was only 22 years old and hadn't yet been told by casting directors to lose ten pounds. Not that she looked fat in "Rocket Science"...but who knows, maybe she just changed her eating habits over 17 years.)
It's also a little weird when her two best friends are the ones who have more problems with her boyfriend's attitude than SHE does herself. Neither Tess nor Sophie seem to be in a relationship themselves, so it's possible that they just don't know what they're talking about, or they don't understand what it means to BE in a long-term relationship, that it takes compromise and some give-and-take and sometimes putting the other person's needs ahead of your own. But Sophie knows the effects of an eating disorder when she sees it, and Tess gets nothing but flak from Alice when she tries to be the center of attention on her own birthday trip (how DARE she!).
SO what's really going on here, is Alice in abusive relationship or not? Again, the movie has chosen "tell" over "show" but for the first half of this 90 minute film, it's also chosen to do neither, so we're left wondering what exactly is going on. (See also: "Women Talking".). I guess someone felt they couldn't tip their hand too soon here, or the suspense and mystery would be over and you might stop watching.
The first indication we have that something is wrong is the fact that Alice lied about the nature of her trip, she told her boyfriend Simon it was a work trip, not just a week with her two closest girl friends at a cabin, to celebrate Tess's birthday. The implication here is that if she had told him the truth, he never would have let her go, and that's a red flag if ever there was one, that he feels he needs to be in control of her, and she doesn't feel free to have personal time away from him. But then lying about the trip is a worse sin, especially if Simon checks the social media of her friends and finds out that he's been lied to, which will result in him texting at her, calling her repeatedly and then showing up at the cabin himself without notice.
Some reviewers apparently questioned the side-plot here, which is about a woman missing in the woods, Alice at one point joins the search party instead of spending time with her friends, and she checks out an abandoned cottage, but really, the side-plot seems to go nowhere. Except that it serves as a reminder of the potential cosquences of a controlling relationship, it's possible that the missing woman was killed by her own controlling boyfriend when she wouldn't follow his rules or didn't want to be manipulated any more. So it represents a possible future for Alice if she doesn't find a way out of this relationship or start to take back control of her life in some way.
Here's what I think is really going on here, according to my theory about relationships - Simon is a successul artist, with gallery shows and everything, and I'm not sure if Alice has a job, so in essence Simon is the Alpha, and in a relationship there can only be one Alpha. Now I'm not saying all men are Alphas and all women are Betas, but it does still happen. But also there are relationships with female Alphas and male Betas, that happens too. Two females, where one is the Alpha, or two men where one is the Alpha, sure, but what seems impossible to maintain is two Alphas together in a relationship, that's destined to fall apart at some point. Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, both Alphas so they just can't seem to stay together for more than 2 years at a time, there's a case in point. Liz Taylor and Richard Burton, both Alphas, and for many, many other celebrity couples, I'm betting that's part of the problem. The longest running celebrity couples are one where someone takes the Beta role, like Eva Mendes to Ryan Gosling, or Joanne Woodward to Paul Newman. At least there's a CHANCE of long-term success when the Alpha role is assumed by only one person, male or female. I think Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick kind of take turns being the Alpha, career-wise, that's pretty smart.
I think of a relationship as a car, and there can only be one driver at a time - the other person is still in the front seat, just as a passenger. They can look up directions, they can control the radio, but only one person can drive the car, there's no co-driver position available. Some people are natural Alphas, some call themselves type-A, and generally speaking they're the more motivated or successful ones, and if they're in a relationship, they tend to be with a Beta, or they may hook up with Alphas, but the relationships with the Betas tend to last longer. Look, I'm comfortable as a Beta, there's nothing that says a Beta can't have a job and earn some money and enjoy some moderate success, the standard-bearer is probably Doug Emhoff, husband of vice-president Kamala Harris. He's a lawyer, a dad, he seems happy and fulfilled in most respects, but come on, Kamala is clearly the Alpha, and that's OK. Compare that with Bill and Hillary Clintons, both total Alphas, so there's going to be some friction there and competition as well. How and why they're still married, with all of Bill's affairs, I don't know, so they've either worked something out or Hillary would not divorce him for career reasons, that would look even worse for her than staying together and forgiving him, at least in some circles, but staying together and not really BEING together isn't a good look either.
So this, I think, is what's happening in "Alice, Darling", Simon is the acclaimed artist and he's the Alpha in the relationship. Alice is content with being the Beta, but it's an unsettling thing for her, because Simon is quite a bit over the line when it comes to being in control. Her two friends are Alphas themselves, but single Alphas, and they don't quite understand what it means for someone to take up a secondary position willingly. It's alien to them, so they stage this "intervention" and what's really bothering them is that they feel Alice should be an Alpha like them, but hey, maybe it's just not in her nature, it's now how she sees herself. So naturally there's a conflict between who she's has settled on being and who she COULD be, given enough time as a single person. But then she'd also need to be successful at some profession to be a true Alpha, and that's not in the cards for everyone, either. OK, so she shouldn't be with Simon, I'll concede that point because he's an asshole as well as an Alpha, but then, what comes next, what should she do and who should she be? This may be a lot tougher for her to figure out, just saying.
The book that Alice finds and reads for a bit in this movie is "Mrs. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf, and that's another clue for the relationship puzzle here. Part of the plot of that book is the central character, Clarissa Dalloway, who wonders at the beginning of the story if she chose the right husband, but by the end after learning that the enigmatic and demanding Peter Walsh, who she did not marry, is secretly broke and her husband, the boring but reliable Richard, is not. She turned down the Alpha Peter to marry the Beta, Richard, and thus she was able to become the Alpha in her relationship, and she's in a much better situation. Lessons learned, now Alice just needs to do the same, get the Alpha Simon out of her life and become her own Alpha, maybe find a Beta to marry. Or not.
Again, the film can't really explain this viewpoint very well visually, it has to rely on metaphor like depicting her under water and being frantic and unable to breathe, but then surfacing and getting air again for the first time in a while. The same metaphor that was used in the Kelly Clarkson song "Since You've Been Gone", where she sings "I can breathe for the first time." That's about as deep as this one gets, unfortunately. Well, at 90 minutes long at least it won't take up too much of your time.
Also starring Kaniehtiio Horn (last seen in ("The Hummingbird Project"), Charlie Carrick, Wunmi Mosaku (last seen in "Deadpool & Wolverine"), Mark Winnick, Daniel Stolfi (last seen in "Little Italy"), Carolyn Fe (last seen in "Mother!"), Gordon Harper, Viviana Zarrillo, Ethan Mitchell, James M. Jenkinson (last seen in "Fahrenheit 451"), Lindsay Leese (last seen in "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio"), Farah Merani.
RATING: 4 out of 10 olives spilled on the ground (did he have to buy so MANY?)
No comments:
Post a Comment