Comments on: cheating ourselves

By: Wimp

Wimp — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:44:08 +0000

Brilliant review. Anette’s scene when she found out about the cheat is pure, pure gold. So moving and sad.

I love how in this film about adults stuck in their own little worlds of anxieties and bourgeois commodity and boredom, the characters with a genuine search for meaningful connections are their kids. Yes, they are alright, indeed! Another scene that comes to mind is when the teen boy, insecure and in an early stage of personality formation, intuitively distances himself from the phoneys, in a very Salingerian way: both the donor and the animal-beating friend.

This is a very misunderstood film that demands more attentive viewers.

By: jenniferfrompittsburgh

jenniferfrompittsburgh — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:22:10 +0000

It was my experience that my kids were more interested about me being lesbian and why, but then I was with their dad for a lot of their youth, so there’s that. Kids want to know things, they’re annoying that way.
This movie struck me as authentic, with characters who are flawed and human, and told in a way that engages the viewer from start to finish.

By: scribegrrrl

scribegrrrl — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:24:24 +0000

@Ace — Hi! Yes, I agree that the “real-life lesbian” behind the camera makes a difference. Lends some validity, I think — because it’s actually her story in some ways.

And regarding that quote, I wonder whether Cholodenko regrets saying that? But obviously she’s right not to worry about alienating a sector of such a difficult group.

@weltatem — I do see what you’re saying. Of course. I just don’t understand why this movie is being subjected to that kind of analysis. Its context is the decidedly heteronormative world we live in (ack, I swore I’d never write or speak that word ever again), and I think it’s fantastic that Cholodenko is carving out a space in that world. I don’t subscribe to the “traditional forms” — I wouldn’t get married even if I had a federally recognized way to do so — but for *what it is,* I think the film is fabulous. Universal, personal. Not political. Why does it need to be?

Let’s just think happy thoughts about I Am Love instead.

By: Ace

Ace — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:38:57 +0000

I finally got around to seeing the movie this weekend and was pleased to find it almost as good as I had heard it was. (I did, however, have some minor issues with the first scene in which Jules slept with Paul.)

When leaving the movie, my wife and I discussed the degree to which it mattered to us that Cholodenko with a married lesbian with a kid — and we determined that this significantly affected our reactions to the movie. For me, anyway, it helped me be OK with the parts of the movie that pushed my I-hate-movies-where-lesbians-sleep-with-men buttons.

I’ve read a fair amount of commentary since seeing the movie and found it depressing how frequently Cholodenko’s motives in making the movie are reduced to this out-of-context quote: “I was much more interested in reaching out to the male population…than I was concerned about alienating a sector of the lesbian population.” Argh.

By: weltatem

weltatem — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:19:16 +0000

It is not about penises, it is about heteronormativity. It is about the bankruptcy of traditional patriarchal forms to promise fulfillment for emancipated women. Above all, it’s about the filmmaker’s decision not to question those norms in these precarious and transitional times, despite the film’s mere trappings of progressive gender ideals. Applaud its moment in time, be grateful that it was put on film: just don’t ask us to get on board with its shallow depth of vision.