 |
| Insistor |
I watched this 1987 film based on John Updikes's 1984 novel again on television the other day. When I first saw it, I thought there wasn't much to it, apart from Jack Nicholson's hilariously OTT performance as Darryl Van Horne, some kind of meglomaniacal, demonic figure (I'm surprised no-one on IC has borrowed the name - at least to my knowledge).
There seem to be a few differences between the screenplay and Updikes's novel (of which I've only read a synopsis) but the central idea appears to be the same, i.e. that women need men to fulfill themselves and realise their full powers.
This has been taken as a misogynistic view by many critics, but in the film at least the Darryl character, whilst enjoying the favours of three women, presents himself as their instrument. "Use me" he says to one of them "Fill me up. I can take it."
Darryl also seems to be the one most interested in preserving the "family" (admittedly poly) and in producing offspring. Perhaps these are only traps for the women but that's not the way it appears.
Though Darryl is the key to unlocking the potential of the three frustrated women, in the end he is expendable especially after they have each given birth to his son.
It is possible to interpret the story in a number of ways. Is it any more than a light satire on the sexes and the relationship between them or is there a more interesting message there? I'm not sure.
Edited Thu 20 Oct 11, 9:14 PM by Insistor
| 20 Oct 11, 9:25 AM Malbon UK(LS), 8 yrs  |
I recommend the book, particularly if you enjoy rich, elegant prose. The film was a pretty crude and simplified version of Updike's story. Typical Hollywood treatment.
For me it's about the sexual liberation of women leading to the full expression of their creative power, and some of the things that may get broken in the process. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? Not very popular with feminists - in Eastwick the women need the priapic male to release their full energy and power. 'Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?' - Harry M. Warner, 1927 | |
| 20 Oct 11, 11:07 AM tallulahme UK, 2 yrs |
I think that it is a pretty amazing film and quite erotic too. I couldn't understand why I loved it so much when it first came out, when my peers were not bothered. Of course it is obvious to me now. Do you have to be the ice queen intellectual OR the slut-whore? Isn't there some way to be both? | |
| 20 Oct 11, 6:01 PM sub2be 9 yrs |
Me too 
| |
| 20 Oct 11, 9:11 PM Insistor UK(PL), 7 yrs |
Yes, it's a book I must read soon - difficult to comment otherwise. As for the film version, Nicholson is far from being the stereotypical fantasy "stud". His empowering talents are much more connected with his supernatural gifts and also his admiration and appreciation of women - amounting almost to womb-worship at times. I suppose what upset the feminists was the presentation of women as if they were just as dumb victims of their hormones as their male counterparts.
BDSM: Boring, Dumb, Sad, Motherfuckers. | |
| 20 Oct 11, 9:12 PM Insistor UK(PL), 7 yrs |
It's not obvious to me why I'm interested in it. Care to say a bit more? BDSM: Boring, Dumb, Sad, Motherfuckers. | |
| 23 Oct 11, 10:51 AM tortoise UK, 14 mths |
he wrote the sequel just before he died, The Widows Of Eastwick - very Updike | |
| 25 Oct 11, 8:10 AM PricklyPear UK, 3 yrs   |
I preferred this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTiil52Jw4w | |
| 25 Oct 11, 2:06 PM Insistor UK(PL), 7 yrs |
Sure you didn't mean this ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7cir0Qv6Fg BDSM: Boring, Dumb, Sad, Motherfuckers. |
