MovieChat Forums > The Swimmer (1968) Discussion > sixties counter-culture punishing the ma...

sixties counter-culture punishing the male playboy, ie, the stud

posted 18 years ago by A_Minor_Blip
6 replies | jump to latest

this is a good film, but i kinda see through it. i see the intentions of the time, the sixties, where the bogart-esque, john wayne-ish type of man's man were being replaced with overnice, "wimpy" men who give in to women right from the start ("girly men"), and the playboys, ie, the men who "used" women (who women gave in to and then later hated) were seen as bad guys, villains... this character played by lancaster is a playboy, a stud, as it were, and he's punished throughout, seen as a joke, even by his daughters (as mentioned at the public pool), and this is rubbed in, and in and in and in till he has nothing, no home, no kids, no wife, no friends... this film is, in a nutshell, the punishment, ie, the damnation of the stud, the sixties taking it out on the kind of men that dominated throughout the entire 20th century in film, and in real life, men who fought wars, chewed through bullets, and called women "broads", giving them a slap to settle them down (like bogie)... and these "real men" were replaced with the type of man that a women could "cuddle" with, could easily win an argument with, and most importantly, could control (the players of old were tough guys who women desired through mere attraction; the players of new were men who learned to trick women by acting like a woman) (the ashley wilkes were becoming the rhett butlers).... this change began in the sixties and really surged throughout the seventies, when the steve mcqueen/john waynes were being slowly replaced with the elliot gould/alan aldas, ie, sensitive guys (in other words, writers of sixties/seventies films were sensitive guys who had always lost women to the tough guys, so they, in their scripts, would make the stud into an obvious clown, and this stud would lose to the nice guy, who is always a diamond in the rough)... mind you, in the seventies there were, of course, the charles bronson and clint eastwoods, but in those (action) films they're not with women a whole lot, just guns (the tough guys in the seventies were somewhat asexual) (and burt reynolds liked cars more than chicks and was more of a buddy to chicks)... so anyhow, that's how i see this film... the death of the playboy... the stud punished...

ie, being washed up...

pun intended!

[–] Clothes-Off 17 years ago

Hey, there had to be some kind of answer to the ridiculous James Bond movies with women absolutely throwing themselves at himm in a matter of seconds.

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

I think the OP's theory has some merit in the context of the film as a film rather than in that of Cheever's original story (which viewed Ned from the inside out, rather than the outside in as Hollywood did with Wayne, et al.) The filmmakers' choice of Lancaster for the role -- considering that by 1968 he would have been regarded as a member of the "old guard," hardly hip at all -- was clearly fraught with meaning.

Ned is certainly being "punished" in the story, but his transgressions are only hinted at, never explicitly explained. In that sense any one of us, hot or not, could be said to be like Ned Merrill at one time or another in our lives (especially after a death, divorce, job loss, or all three).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2BU8-7kQLI

[–] Ozymandias-King-of-Kings 17 years ago

While I agree with everything the original poster said, it's worth pointing out - simply for balance - that the women in the film didn't get off scott free either: Ned's daughters were irresponsible (car crash) and two-faced (laughing about him); Ned's wife was materialistic (references to how choosy she was when buying things, and the fact that she left Ned when things got tough); His mistress' taunts about lying to him (which we aren't really supposed to believe)when she could see his emotional state; the babysitters refusal to accept Ned's affection; the female nudist who didn't want to lend Ned any money even when her husband suggests they should.
Every woman in the film that Ned turns to (from when things start going downhill) either criticises or rejects him. He's been bad, yes, but the film also shows how women who were fine with him when things were good aren't interested now. I thought the film was a pretty damning portrayal of both genders, but its main focus was the individual man.
I see the film as a criticism of a social group and their lifestyle, rather than an attack on machismo and the old male. The old male was just the best shorthand for that group. It's the 60's counter-culture attacking the old order all right, but it's attacking the whole of the old order.

[–] fiftyfootqueenie 16 years ago

No, the first poster has got it all wrong. It's interesting that he or she lumps Burt in with Bogie and that old bigot Wayne, as if, because they were all masculine (which is *not* the same thing as being macho, which is hysterical and hints at insecurity) and iconic stars of old Hollywood, they are automatically all one and the same.

Lancaster was always the tender hunk, never the macho boor. Indeed, insensitive as this films suggest he might have been before his world crashed about him, he never at any time comes over as 'macho' or the kind of man to give a woman a good slapping (a real man would never raise his hand to a woman).

The film, as the previous poster said, is more of an attack on rich-as-stink, East-coast commuter-belt surbubanites, whose world, despite being geographically close to NYC, was several light years away from the counterculture of Warhol and the Velvets, rooted in a fear of change and of difference. None of them come out of it well, although we get a sense that Shirley's greivances are justified - she clearly feels Ned used her, even if he didn't intend to.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eelb53 10 years ago

I don't see this film as a counter-culture statement. The main character and scenario could very much apply today. From observing conversation at one of Ned's earlier stops, when the man offers Ned a job, it's indicative that Ned likely worked in advertising on Madison Avenue. Ned was ousted by young up and coming ad executives. He was left unemployed. Henceforth, his wife and family left him, and he became destitute, defaulting on many debts. During his prime he had been a perpetual womanizer, and that too has fallen by the wayside. These factors are of importance to be stated, because absolutely none of them have anything to do with the changing morals, and roles of men and women in the late 1960's.

Fast forward to today, and the same type character is plausible. Change the advertising executive, to a modern day Wall Street broker, who is downsized in middle age. Who has the same flaws as Ned. Such individuals obviously exist. Extramarital affairs, and job loss, are certainly as prevalent now as they were in 1968, if not more so.

A modern film expressing the same sentiment, is The Wolf of Wall Street. Although Wolf and The Swimmer, are conceptually very different films, one being a big mainstream extravaganza, and the other a subdued art film, the main characters' plight is very similar. Neither of these main characters illustrate any traits that pertain to the social trends of the era in which they live. About the only thing one could point out, is the replacement of alcohol with cocaine in the newer film.