The acting, dialogue is great but my grievances are really plotwise.
1. did they not have artificial insemination in the 80's? meg & harold. WTF?
2. chloe ends up with nick? uh her boyfriend just committed suicide like 4 days earlier. how about a little respect? that goes for both of them.
i did let karen slide though. her husband is a jerk. i hope she left him.
I thought Karen's husband was a decent (albeit chilly) person. Hell, he even had the decency to take the kids solo while Karen hung out with friends for a week smoking grass and fooling around. He was decent and Karen was a self-centered, self-pleasuring be-itch who took advantage of this free time like a teenager whose parents go out of town for the weekend.
And although test-tube babies had been in production since the first successful birth in 1978, it really wasn't commonplace in 1983. It didn't really come into commercial applications until the late 80's and more commonplace (and "affordable") in the 90's.
I think I shall never pee on life as lovely as a tree
Just because artificial insemination was available doesn't mean that one considers it an option. She explained why she was consdering the men in the group suitable candidates for fulfilling her desire to have a baby. As for Chloe and Nick, I think it's safe to assume their relationship (athough it's not clearly implied that they plan to have one) will be platonic, because Nick's war injury make sexual intercourse a non-option for him. I agree with you about Karen. Althought it's clear that after she screwed her brains out that weekend, she had every intention of going back to her boring life with Richard to pretend like nothing happened!
shareThe "help me make a baby" subplot was the ONLY thing in this movie I didn't like. Nobody is that close, I don't care how long they've known one another. I mean invitro would be one thing (I know, it wasn't an option back then), but letting your husband sleep with your best friend, I went to college in the 70's and I've never known any woman who would have gone for that.
As far as Richard and Karen go, I've always assumed from the look on Richard's face when he was sitting in the car and they were saying goodbye that he was none too happy with Karen staying and they he had a pretty good idea what was probably going to happen. Karen may be willing to go home and resume her make believe life but I'm betting that at some point, probably when their kids are a little older, Richard decides to kick her to the curb.
I don't know that I agree with you about Sarah's sacrifice. Keep in mind she had an affair with the deceased. Maybe she thought this was a way of finding redemption for her transgression. I'll concede that maybe that's a bit far fectched though. As for Richard, he strikes me as the type that's not going to ask his wife what she did on her weekend with her old college chums. I don't know that his irritation was due to the fact that he suspected anything, I don't think he's that bright. I think his irritation was due to the fact that Karen didn't want him to stay and he was tasked with going home and "explaining to the kids."
shareI agree with you. This is probably the only way Sarah could have let Harold do this. And if she were to do it, it could only have been Meg, with whom she shared such close relationship. I think its symbolic of their love for each other and the incredibly high value they begin to give their friendship which seasoned with time and the loss of Alex.
What perplexed me/made me feel odd about was how did Harold do it? There was no known history between Harold & Meg; it should really have been an odd thing for him to do.
Btw, the most "real" person in the group was Sam - despite being a star. I loved every character in this movie.
This movie is like the song 74-75 by The Connells. Truly nostalgic & touching.
You were in college in the 70's? Was it late 70's? The 60's was very different. I grew up in both eras (albeit very young) but I saw the distinct change we went through into the 70's. It was a different world and sex was very casual. I am sure those values of no shame, free love etc still do to a degree impact their older selves.
People, esp we Americans are too hung up on sex. We still have these conservative right-wing people that finds it dirty, bad shameful and holds to very old repressive standards.
All repression does build up unnecessary guilt and frustration.
While free love wasn't as widespread as people think, it was still out there. The 60's was the aftermath of the McCarthy era and 50's where that Leave it To Beaver ideal held true. Vietnam was the thing that popped Americas cherry. We stopped being naive, we stopped being perfect
We grew up. And it seems the religious right is still struggling to put the genie back.
That compounded with a sense of disdain and jealousy from later generations. Many of the baby boomers babies resent their parents idyllic 60's.
Any way...I know people who were like that in the 60's and they still hold on to many of those ideas. I can see them doing it. Maybe not a lot of them, but still. It could happen.
I went to college in the early 80s, and I would have considered doing that for a friend. Not everyone is like you.
Coulson has a plan.
Uhh... don't want to rock your world, but the fact that Nick is impotent hardly implies their relationship will be "platonic." There are other ways for a man to pleasure a woman other than through intercourse, and my guess is that Nick is familiar with all of them. I assume Nick will also be able to get some pleasure out of sex, though it won't be in the "traditional" sense of the word.
Coulson has a plan.
For me the scene in which Karen tells Sam, who has just suggested that she (and her children) come live with him, that she is planning to go right back to her husband that she doesn't love or even appreciate, is perhaps the saddest moment in the film. Karen is a tragic character as she may have espoused revolutionary ideals but she is no revolutionary herself. She can't even leave her bourgeois marriage to live with her Hollywood actor lover. It shows how limited all of them are as far as their college ideals were concerned. Sam is clearly devastated as the "fling" actually meant something to him, and he clearly indicates that he is tired of the superficial Hollywood life, has realized that he is a B level actor with a limited shelf life (his embarrassment about the television show is painful), and he is still in love with Karen. Her rejection is predictable but feels like a slap across the face.
"Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys! I am talking about the central nervous system!"
I always think it's hilarious when people are upset because a movie didn't fit their values and sense of reason. If that's the case, something must inherently be wrong with the movie. Right?
Oi vey.
Who's upset? we all just happen to be discussing a movie, it's called discourse, or conversation, or whatever else you'd like to call it. That's all. I happened to find one particular plot twist hard to swallow, that's all. No big deal. Nothing to do with my values or my sense of reason. It's not nearly that deep.
And I never said there was anything wrong with the movie, inherently or otherwise, it happens to be one of my all time favorite movies. That doesn't mean it's perfect or that I find no fault with it.
And if this is what you find hilarious then I think you need to get out more.
hear hear!
I might not ever have an affair or let my husband sleep with my best friend no matter the reason, and I sure would never snort coke, but I can understand people who do and don't judge. I've always loved this movie. Every time I watch it.
~~~~~~
Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once. ;)
I hated your #1 complaint, as well. It was so frustrating and disappointing, not to mention creepy. But I also hated this movie, in general. I think it's so overrated and the characters are so self-absorbed and whiny. A much better movie, that was the inspiration for the Big Chill, is The Return of the Secaucus Seven.
shareI have to agree with you. I saw this movie recently because I'd heard so many good things about it. I didn't get why people liked it so much. The characters seemed so incredibly selfish. Yes, there were moments when they went deeper, but it was all about what they wanted. Really, it was about a weekend of indulging in themselves.
I didn't think the movie was that great to begin with. However, when it got to Meg and Harold, that really made me dislike the movie. I find that subplot extremely hard to swallow. What woman is totally okay with her husband and best friend sleeping together so she can have a baby? Someone mentioned that it could be redemption for her. I was thinking the same thing. However, she seemed so calm and excited about it that I don't really think that's the angle. I think she really just wanted to help out her friend. And I'm sorry, but I don't think that would really happen. Besides, even if she was okay with it at that point, I have to wonder if it would slowly start to eat at her.
That subplot was so bizarre and unbelievable that I had a hard time swallowing the rest of the movie. Made me very aware I was watching a fictional film and not anything based in reality.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Maybe this is the kind of thing people have trouble believing happens if they haven't seen it for themselves. Polyamory or other forms of sexual sharing seem completely alien to some people - like they could only be fictional, could never happen in real life.
But it does exist. It's not even all that rare, and it doesn't mean the people involved are twisted or weird.
My friends and I exchanged and experimented with partners with no ill feelings, no bad results. A gay man trying oral with a straight woman just to see what the fuss was about; a paired-off woman offering to sleep with her man's lonely best friend; one of us realizing our partner was a better match for someone else in the group. Everyone enjoyed and appreciated sex but none subscribed to the idea that it was - unlike money or food or clothes - not to be shared.
We all grew up, moved on, and most of us are still in touch. No bad results.
I had no problem believing Sarah and Harold happily shared what they had with Meg. Why not? Sarah was secure in her long, well-established relationship with her husband. She knew Meg intimately, and trusted that Meg wanted only what she said she did: a loving, known sperm donor.
I thought it was sweet.
_______________
Nothing to see here, move along.
1. Artificial insemination is not cheap now and it was REALLY not cheap in the early 1980s.
However, as a lawyer, Meg should have known damn well it was not as simple as she was letting on (legally, financially, emotionally, etc etc etc)
2. The point was supposed to be that Chloe was a shallow Gen-Y'er who only formed casual relationships, and Nick was a complete selfish SOB.
2. The point was supposed to be that Chloe was a shallow Gen-Y'er who only formed casual relationships, and Nick was a complete selfish SOB.
[deleted]
I'm still horrified by how many people assume that since Nick's penis doesn't work, his relationship with Chloe won't involve sex. Do you think his tongue was damaged in Vietnam, too!!??? And I would have to imagine that he would get something out of it, as well. Sex is mostly in the brain, so with some creativity and imagination, they could certainly have a very active and enjoyable sexual relationship, just not a "traditional" one.
Coulson has a plan.
There is some confusion here about AID - artificial insemination by donor - and IVF, in-vitro fertilisation. IVF is an incredibly complex and expensive medical procedure where an ovum is extracted, fertilised, and reinserted into the uterus. It is used when any one of a number of medical problems prevent natural conception. The failure rate is very high. AID involves the insertion of donor semen into the uterus. It's used when the man is infertile and the woman does not want to have sexual intercourse with the sperm donor, or when a lesbian couple wish to have a baby. The success rate is very high indeed. It costs nothing. In this case all it would involve is Harold having a quick five finger shuffle and Sarah impregnating Meg with the semen using a turkey baster. (No, that's not a joke.) Sarah is a doctor and it is inconcievable that she didn't know this!
Chloe was not (and COULD NOT BE) Gen Y. This movie was made in 1983 and she had to be at least 18 years old as Alex was her second live-in boyfriend by her own admission. She was at best a Gen X-er, or even (like me) a late baby boomer. I am considered either "late baby boom" or "early Gen X" as I was born in 1963, and was approximately Chloe's age when this movie was made in 1983.
Gen Y = Millenial = someone between ~1980 and 2000.
Gen X = someone born between 1961-1981 or 1965-1985 depending on who you listen to
Baby boomer = someone born between 1945-1960 or 1965
Let's be conservative and say Chloe was only 18; that means she would have been born in 1965. However you look at it, there's no way she could be Gen Y! (And the actress who played Chloe was actually a baby boomer, without question, having been born in 1960; she was 23 when this movie was made.)
Coulson has a plan.
1. She didn't want an anonymous sperm donor. She wanted the father to be someone she loved and respected. Having said that, allowing your friend to sleep with your husband is a bit much, not that it hasn't happened.
2. Chloe was a "free spirit" and a bit of a dunce. She was only with the dude who killed himself for 4 months. She probably figured her ex (now dead) would "want" her friends to be happy and her getting together with Nick would be "OK" with him.
I think the movie is portraying the weekend to be somewhat special. Old friends, all ex 60's radicals, are brought together by a tragic event and the old feelings rush back, causing things to occur that may not have otherwise.
I like the fact they realize their leftist beliefs were basically phony and they have now grown to reject the values they once embraced. They show some regret for that but in the end they do go back to their normal lives as typical middle class morons.
Pretty much every 60's burnout I know has sold out, now they are arguing FOR "The Man", in the form of massive government interventions in our lives. Odd that the so-called "greatest generation" gave birth to the most self-obsessed degenerates ever.
Yeah, because universal health care would be SO INVASIVE...
*rolls eyes*
Coulson has a plan.
How is Karen's hubby a jerk? Because he's an adult, and willing to sacrifice for his priorities (his kids and wife)?
He may not be the most fun guy, but he seems pretty decent.
I agree. I always felt she treated her husband rather horribly considering his only offense is that he just wasn't as "cool" as her college friends. She practically rolled her eyes at him every time he spoke and I don't think he deserved that.
shareI totally agree.
~~~~~~
Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once. ;)
1. Not sure, but whether they did or didn't, it's possible that Meg, Harold and Sarah just didn't believe in it and thought natural insemination was the best way.
2. I agree with this. Showing them making a connection is fine, but they should've parted ways and not pursued a relationship considering the recent death of her lover and his friend. Maybe they could've promised to keep in touch and possibly start a relationship after some time has passed, but to jump into one that soon?
I don't see how Richard (Karen's husband) is a jerk; a little stiff and distant (understandable considering that he doesn't know these people and the very circumstances of meeting them in the first place), but probably loving anyway. And his monologue in the kitchen with Sam and Nick is a great scene, really boosts his likability in my eyes.