![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
morality, feh
Just watched The Shape of Things for a second time. This time, I had a much different take on it. Under the cut - please don't click if you haven't seen it, it's one of those movies where the less you know about it, the better.
I'm going to call the characters by the actors' names, but assume that you remember the basic gist of the plot. And if you don't remember because you haven't seen it, I'm not summarizing anything, so this really isn't going to make sense. Heh. So, this time, I noticed two things that had escaped me the first time around. I think that I was as flummoxed by surprise ending as Paul Rudd's character. However, this time, I realized that in Rachel Weisz's character's presentation of her thesis, the dramatic high point had nothing to do with the trick, with art, or with Paul Rudd's character. It had to do with jealousy, her insistance that Gretchen Mol's character had slept with her boyfriend, the one that she supposedly had no real feelings for. And how, exactly, had she ascertained that they had in fact slept together? If it had been in the diary, he would have known she knew; if Fred Weller's character had told her, he wouldn't have asked Paul Rudd's character if there had been tongue involved. Granted, there could have been some kind of surveillance, but I was left with the impression that it was something that she'd made up because she was jealous, and convinced that since he was lying to everyone else, and lying to himself, that he must be lying to her. And then there's another aspect to this story that makes it even more morally ambiguous: there's that scene when Gretchen Mol's character asks Rachel Weisz to remind her of what her thesis is, and is embarrassed to realize she'd never asked. Well, why hadn't her supposed boyfriend, who supposedly loved her, who supposedly wanted to marry her, never asked? At least, he never asked onscreen. (Or, onstage, I suppose.) And even if (as presumably would have been logical) Rachel Weisz had been vague or prevaricated, why wouldn't he have tried to find out? He worked at an art museum, for chrissakes. So yes, I'm still somewhat by her character's actions, and still sympathetic to his, but finding these conventional problems - jealousy, and not caring about something that one's partner does - within the stranger trappings makes me feel less judgmental. And, of course, even more impressed by Neil LaBute's writing.
I'm going to call the characters by the actors' names, but assume that you remember the basic gist of the plot. And if you don't remember because you haven't seen it, I'm not summarizing anything, so this really isn't going to make sense. Heh. So, this time, I noticed two things that had escaped me the first time around. I think that I was as flummoxed by surprise ending as Paul Rudd's character. However, this time, I realized that in Rachel Weisz's character's presentation of her thesis, the dramatic high point had nothing to do with the trick, with art, or with Paul Rudd's character. It had to do with jealousy, her insistance that Gretchen Mol's character had slept with her boyfriend, the one that she supposedly had no real feelings for. And how, exactly, had she ascertained that they had in fact slept together? If it had been in the diary, he would have known she knew; if Fred Weller's character had told her, he wouldn't have asked Paul Rudd's character if there had been tongue involved. Granted, there could have been some kind of surveillance, but I was left with the impression that it was something that she'd made up because she was jealous, and convinced that since he was lying to everyone else, and lying to himself, that he must be lying to her. And then there's another aspect to this story that makes it even more morally ambiguous: there's that scene when Gretchen Mol's character asks Rachel Weisz to remind her of what her thesis is, and is embarrassed to realize she'd never asked. Well, why hadn't her supposed boyfriend, who supposedly loved her, who supposedly wanted to marry her, never asked? At least, he never asked onscreen. (Or, onstage, I suppose.) And even if (as presumably would have been logical) Rachel Weisz had been vague or prevaricated, why wouldn't he have tried to find out? He worked at an art museum, for chrissakes. So yes, I'm still somewhat by her character's actions, and still sympathetic to his, but finding these conventional problems - jealousy, and not caring about something that one's partner does - within the stranger trappings makes me feel less judgmental. And, of course, even more impressed by Neil LaBute's writing.