So much has been written about this film, it's hard to imagine what anyone could add to the discussion. But having finally seen the uncut film after thirty years, I'm going to make a few comments about it.
I also recently read the novel by Judith Rossner that the screenplay was based on, and one thing stands out definitely:In the movie adaptation,all of the men Theresa gets involved with are negative, destructive characters in one way or another. The most striking difference from the novel is in the portrayal of James, the conservative, traditional man who would like to marry her. The film's James, played by William Atherton, is ultimately a creepy kind of guy, who turns out to be pretty unstable, and not the nice, if dull, man he is in the book. Tony is also portrayed in a more negative light by Richard Gere. He is much more sleazy and vaguely sinister than in the novel. The relationship is built up more too, probably for contrast with the conventional marriage and family offered to her by James. Theresa's difficulties at mutual understanding with her angry father are clearly at the root of all her later struggles with male/female relationships. This too is emphasized much more strongly than in the novel.
Diane Keaton is convincing as a serious young woman with high ideals, who finds herself leading a double life as a bar hopping party girl by night. The essential contradictions of her character are never really resolved, but are certainly echoed by her sister Katherine's succession of failed marriages and affairs. Both stand in contrast to the third sister, Brigid, who has assumed the role of the traditional Catholic housewife and mother.
There's a really moving quality about Keaton's portrayal of a seemingly fragile, yet tough young woman who has had to cope with physical disability, rejection by those she loves, and being casually abandoned by a man she thought really loved her. Her insistence that she is " alone, not lonely", is not convincing, ultimately. She has chosen this life of thrill seeking and playing by her own rules, in contrast to the way her family would like her to have turned out, but her decision near the end of the movie to quit drugs and stop hanging out at bars is a strong indication of a new resolution to find a more meaningful life.
Whch leads us to the problematic ending. This film has been criticized for thirty years now for apparently showing that sexually liberated young women deserve to end up dead. Many viewers have interpreted it that way, especially when it was new, and the ending continues to trouble people today. I am unable to come to a definite conclusion about this. On one hand, it seems arbitrary and out of left field, and yet we know that the real life tragedy that inspired the novel occurred pretty much like what is shown here. For what it's worth, I don't feel that the movie is suggesting that she deserved it, or somehow she had it coming. One might assume that she could end up being killed by either the increasingly unstable James, or the small time criminal Tony, both of whom have shown jealousy, possessiveness, and a violent streak, especially startling coming from James. But her death as the result of a sudden attack from a total stranger doesn't seem to fit the possible ending one might have expected. It's as if she were to be struck by lightning while walking home from the bar. One could even say that it has very little to do with her, but is the result of the uncontrollable self hatred of the man who kills her; something foreshadowed by his angry response to the man who was flirting with him earlier at the bar. This man was a stick of dynamite waiting to go off, and anyone could have been the victim, but it just happened to be her.
The movie has its flaws, but the overall impact is powerful, and Diane Keaton is lovely and heartbreaking in the role of a lifetime. I only wish Theresa's story could have had a happy ending, but then it wouldn't be the thought provoking and moving story it is. Well worth seeing, but a very sad film about a sad life.
I also recently read the novel by Judith Rossner that the screenplay was based on, and one thing stands out definitely:In the movie adaptation,all of the men Theresa gets involved with are negative, destructive characters in one way or another. The most striking difference from the novel is in the portrayal of James, the conservative, traditional man who would like to marry her. The film's James, played by William Atherton, is ultimately a creepy kind of guy, who turns out to be pretty unstable, and not the nice, if dull, man he is in the book. Tony is also portrayed in a more negative light by Richard Gere. He is much more sleazy and vaguely sinister than in the novel. The relationship is built up more too, probably for contrast with the conventional marriage and family offered to her by James. Theresa's difficulties at mutual understanding with her angry father are clearly at the root of all her later struggles with male/female relationships. This too is emphasized much more strongly than in the novel.
Diane Keaton is convincing as a serious young woman with high ideals, who finds herself leading a double life as a bar hopping party girl by night. The essential contradictions of her character are never really resolved, but are certainly echoed by her sister Katherine's succession of failed marriages and affairs. Both stand in contrast to the third sister, Brigid, who has assumed the role of the traditional Catholic housewife and mother.
There's a really moving quality about Keaton's portrayal of a seemingly fragile, yet tough young woman who has had to cope with physical disability, rejection by those she loves, and being casually abandoned by a man she thought really loved her. Her insistence that she is " alone, not lonely", is not convincing, ultimately. She has chosen this life of thrill seeking and playing by her own rules, in contrast to the way her family would like her to have turned out, but her decision near the end of the movie to quit drugs and stop hanging out at bars is a strong indication of a new resolution to find a more meaningful life.
Whch leads us to the problematic ending. This film has been criticized for thirty years now for apparently showing that sexually liberated young women deserve to end up dead. Many viewers have interpreted it that way, especially when it was new, and the ending continues to trouble people today. I am unable to come to a definite conclusion about this. On one hand, it seems arbitrary and out of left field, and yet we know that the real life tragedy that inspired the novel occurred pretty much like what is shown here. For what it's worth, I don't feel that the movie is suggesting that she deserved it, or somehow she had it coming. One might assume that she could end up being killed by either the increasingly unstable James, or the small time criminal Tony, both of whom have shown jealousy, possessiveness, and a violent streak, especially startling coming from James. But her death as the result of a sudden attack from a total stranger doesn't seem to fit the possible ending one might have expected. It's as if she were to be struck by lightning while walking home from the bar. One could even say that it has very little to do with her, but is the result of the uncontrollable self hatred of the man who kills her; something foreshadowed by his angry response to the man who was flirting with him earlier at the bar. This man was a stick of dynamite waiting to go off, and anyone could have been the victim, but it just happened to be her.
The movie has its flaws, but the overall impact is powerful, and Diane Keaton is lovely and heartbreaking in the role of a lifetime. I only wish Theresa's story could have had a happy ending, but then it wouldn't be the thought provoking and moving story it is. Well worth seeing, but a very sad film about a sad life.