Movies, Mom & Me

• 
  Commentary:  This movie is a remake of The Heiress, a movie of which, you'll note in my commentary, I am inordinately fond. When I discovered recently that this movie existed, I knew I not only had to see it, I had to have it in my collection as a companion, good or bad, to The Heiress. I just received it, haven't watched it yet, but will be doing so this evening (8/10/21). I'm excited, and a bit leary, because of the Wikipedia article linked at the end of this post. Although the article indicates that the movie was generally well reviewed, I notice that some critics were a bit squirrely about it. One even hissed "feminism" in his review. How weird! Makes me even more anxious to watch it. I'll be back soon, Dear Reader.
    Today, 8/19/21, I watched this movie and The Heiress back to back. I've watched both of them before, this one once before, within the last several days, The Heiress, oh my, let me think, no, let me check; okay, three times before, including the viewing a few, or so, days ago. Something I noticed tonight: although the two movies portray the same time period, the ambience of each film is clearly situated in the time period in which it was produced.
    The Heiress was released in 1949. It frames Catherine Sloper's problem in light of traditional values inculcated into society immediately after WW II, Leave It to Beaver values: Mom is the homemaker, Dad is the breadwinner, kids brimming with what we now think of as "traditional American values" are the product and, if a woman doesn't marry, well, she's stuck in her original family and/or family's homestead for the rest of her life. Catherine does not look beyond her home and her expectation of marriage to Morris Townsend, with whom she is in love, for fulfillment. When those fail, her life is portrayed to be engulfed in bitterness. When Townsend appears one last time, she bars her door against him and retreats upstairs to bed, leaving Townsend to figure out her refusal of what was surely to be yet another proposal, while he bangs on her unanswered door. This is where her screen story ends.
    In this 1997 version Catherine Sloper endures exactly the same problems as her 1949-version self, except that she is cut out of her father's will (1949 Catherine is not) and has to make do on the $10,000 yearly stipend she inherited from her mother's estate, and, of course, the home on Washington Square. This not only doesn't bother Catherine, her reaction is as though she has been released from what she considered to be her father's stranglehold. She laughs at her father's threat to withhold any inheritance. He does what he's threatened. Still and all, once he is dead, she leads what is, to her, a satisfying life, supplementing her income by running a daycare center in the home she inherited from her father. When Townsend reappears, as he did in the 1949 film, she talks to him and refuses his proposal with resolute dignity. Wikipedia writes, "He departs, leaving Catherine to reflect on the passion she once experienced." Frankly, I didn't get the idea that she was "reflect[ing] on the passion she once experienced." My interpretation at the end of the movie was that she was simply and quietly reveling in the peace, self-direction and self-awareness she had achieved once men, most notably her father and former intended, were out of the picture. All in all, this version of the story came off rather like a soft Gilmore Girls version of womanhood without the cheeky fast talk, excepting Aunt Lavinia.
    Both films are well made from the point of view of cinematography and direction. Both have fascinating, earnest and substantial actors playing all the parts. It's funny, because I've trolled the internet for reviews of both versions and, although I found several short ones and one done as a school assignment, none of the reviewers seems to quite get what I got out of them. I guess that's both movies' only problem, lack of audience coherence on the substance and impact of the movies. It appears to be a major problem because the latter version didn't earn its initial production costs back at the box office. In fact, it made back only 13% of what it cost to produce.
    Well, so what. I much enjoy both movies, am glad they are in my collection and I'll be watching them again. And again.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Jennifer Jason Leigh	Catherine Sloper	Albert Finney	Dr. Austin Sloper	Ben Chaplin	Morris Townsend	Maggie Smith	Aunt Lavinia
  Judith Ivey	Aunt Elizabeth Almond	Arthur Laupus	Mr. Almond	Jennifer Garner	Marian Almond	Robert Stanton	Arthur Townsend

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1997
    Directed by Agnieszka Holland.

Labels: dramaD, father-daughter-dynamics, female-director3, jennifer-jason-leigh, romance4

  Counting every television series season as "1", in most cases, I have 566 "movies" as of today, 8/9/21. I'm not sure I'll be thinning out the collection any time soon. I've been adding directors and alternative informative links to each post and, I find, as I go through, as absurd as this is going to sound, I'm developing a renewed interest in watching all and each of them yet again. In the meantime, I've increased my collection since last count by almost 70%. And, that's without even trying!
  Still and all, when I think about it, I'll bet I have only a fraction of a fraction of what popular movie critics have, or, in the case of Roger Ebert, had. I don't know, though. I've never run across anything involving a critic talking about the breadth of her or his movie collection, let alone whether she or he owns a personal collection.
  Oops! With the addition of yet another movie on 8/10/21, I now have 567 "movies"! In fact, let me skip ahead. As of mid-August, 2021, I will have 568 movies, as one more is on the way. I think, now, my movie acquisition will settle down for a bit. But, you never know.