The actors all shine in this one. I especially commend Goldie Hawn for not trying to act too cute (which I feel she has sometimes done), for underplaying the role. Lahti is wonderful - as always - in whatever she does - I loved her in Chicago Hope, in Housekeeping and in many other things.
Ed Harris and Kurt Russell are both so fine. In such small things, they show the difference in personality between these two men. As guilty as the former feels by not serving in the war, he seems more at home in the world, more confident, more fluidly at ease - Harris's character seems throughout more rigid, more defensive (think of his comments early in the movie about Lahti's character as she walks by - these wouldn't have been made by Russell's character). Harris draws more sympathy because of his situation and his simple goodness.
Twenty-five years on, you sense how these characters would respond to current events - Harris with irritation about "what's wrong with these kids today" and Russell with buoyant curiosity.
The movie didn't hit us too much over the head about what a bubbling feminism that didn't really raise its voice but was there as a result of wartime tasks that took women out of the homes. Several times, we do see men irritated that a woman (wife or girlfriend) now earned more or had achieved the same position. That sounds very realistic. I do think they could have shown one of the minor women characters pleased to STOP work and return to home - as I'm sure there were many of those too.
The screenwriter decided to keep the movie light - he could well have made much more of the depth of the romantic feelings between Russell and Hawn - more moving, more powerful - and the anguish of Harris' return more emotional. I think the movie would have worked better had we seen Hawn more torn during the movie - given the talent involved here, the movie would probably have been an Oscar contender as a wrenching romantic drama. However, it is wonderful as it is too.
**** SPOILERS ***
I do appreciate the feelings of the American in Saudi Arabia (on active duty?) that Hawn's character is not condemned enough - this is every soldier's and sailor's nightmare.
Actually I do think we see Hawn's guilt - but we don't see Russell's conscience at work at ALL - for a man who asked a wife each week for 6 months to go out with him - clearly intending that he seduce her. It's a black mark on Russell's character's morality - and the movie should have done more to show either: concurrent awareness of the wrong, subsequent contrition, or else make more clear that his is a loose and immoral character. Instead, it asks for our sympathy for his ousting - it's a credit to Kurt Russell that one does like this character very much - but one certainly feels he should be ousted and was quite wrong. I'm sure at least 2/3 of the audience wants Hawn to return to her husband and 90% feel that she and Russell did very wrong. **** END SPOILERS ***
The intentions of screenwriter and director seem fully realized - and make for a wonderful movie. Christine Lahti should be in more - MUCH more.
Ed Harris and Kurt Russell are both so fine. In such small things, they show the difference in personality between these two men. As guilty as the former feels by not serving in the war, he seems more at home in the world, more confident, more fluidly at ease - Harris's character seems throughout more rigid, more defensive (think of his comments early in the movie about Lahti's character as she walks by - these wouldn't have been made by Russell's character). Harris draws more sympathy because of his situation and his simple goodness.
Twenty-five years on, you sense how these characters would respond to current events - Harris with irritation about "what's wrong with these kids today" and Russell with buoyant curiosity.
The movie didn't hit us too much over the head about what a bubbling feminism that didn't really raise its voice but was there as a result of wartime tasks that took women out of the homes. Several times, we do see men irritated that a woman (wife or girlfriend) now earned more or had achieved the same position. That sounds very realistic. I do think they could have shown one of the minor women characters pleased to STOP work and return to home - as I'm sure there were many of those too.
The screenwriter decided to keep the movie light - he could well have made much more of the depth of the romantic feelings between Russell and Hawn - more moving, more powerful - and the anguish of Harris' return more emotional. I think the movie would have worked better had we seen Hawn more torn during the movie - given the talent involved here, the movie would probably have been an Oscar contender as a wrenching romantic drama. However, it is wonderful as it is too.
**** SPOILERS ***
I do appreciate the feelings of the American in Saudi Arabia (on active duty?) that Hawn's character is not condemned enough - this is every soldier's and sailor's nightmare.
Actually I do think we see Hawn's guilt - but we don't see Russell's conscience at work at ALL - for a man who asked a wife each week for 6 months to go out with him - clearly intending that he seduce her. It's a black mark on Russell's character's morality - and the movie should have done more to show either: concurrent awareness of the wrong, subsequent contrition, or else make more clear that his is a loose and immoral character. Instead, it asks for our sympathy for his ousting - it's a credit to Kurt Russell that one does like this character very much - but one certainly feels he should be ousted and was quite wrong. I'm sure at least 2/3 of the audience wants Hawn to return to her husband and 90% feel that she and Russell did very wrong. **** END SPOILERS ***
The intentions of screenwriter and director seem fully realized - and make for a wonderful movie. Christine Lahti should be in more - MUCH more.