* Possible Spoilers Ahead *
There is a lot more to this sad story than its publicists seem to have realized, and I think much of the credit for this must go to the two lead players, especially to the beautiful and audacious Molly Parker. In Florence she has created a young woman richly endowed with natural gifts, none of which she values, or strives to tie together into an actual personality -- a life -- and who thus must be a dark opposite to the highly skilled actress portraying her. No doubt Miss Parker has encountered many real-life Florences, as have I, and when reaching for their center, found nothing.
Florence has radiant natural beauty, which she either ignores or tries to hide with makeup and blank gazes. She has natural intelligence which has never been challenged or developed. She has human warmth and feminine sensitivity, which she hastens to suppress every time they surface unbidden. She might even have musical talent, but I suspect that drumming, like stripping, is something she can do with her emotions on idle and her brain in neutral.
Peter Sarsgaard's Richard is in even worse shape as a human being. He is a one-trick pony, a software engineer burned out after a year of work that netted him over $1 million, mainly through the entrepreneurial and stock-trading efforts of others. But neither the money nor the work is real to him, and by the time shown in the movie he is essentially ignoring both. Money and job are just forces of nature from which he passively draws sustenance, like the atmosphere and the internet.
Not only does Richard not know what he wants, he (like Florence) does not know how to want. He imagines he wants to be in love with Florence, but he has not the slightest curiosity about who she is. He enjoys the immediate gratification of looking at her and holding her (one would have to be dead not to), but flagrantly misses every opportunity the script presents to ask her what she wants or hopes or dreams -- or even if she has achieved orgasm. Each time she reaches out to him, beyond the terms of their 'contract,' he fails to reciprocate in any meaningful way, reminding her of why she wrote it in the first place.
Strong women sometimes choose intelligent, handsome, but centerless men like Richard as their first husbands because they seem malleable, easily turned into profitable providers and fathers of healthy children. But too often they turn out merely to be Silly Putty, like Richard, unable to hold any shape at all.
Looking ahead, I could see Florence some day putting the pieces of herself together into a real life, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. But Richard? Never.
This is an intelligent and thought-provoking movie. Is it entertaining? Not really. It cuts awfully close to the bone for a lot of folks, including me. Is it erotic eye-candy, as the promoters would have us believe? Again, not really -- except that looking at Molly Parker without makeup (either with or without clothing) is worth a lot more than the price of admission. 7/10
There is a lot more to this sad story than its publicists seem to have realized, and I think much of the credit for this must go to the two lead players, especially to the beautiful and audacious Molly Parker. In Florence she has created a young woman richly endowed with natural gifts, none of which she values, or strives to tie together into an actual personality -- a life -- and who thus must be a dark opposite to the highly skilled actress portraying her. No doubt Miss Parker has encountered many real-life Florences, as have I, and when reaching for their center, found nothing.
Florence has radiant natural beauty, which she either ignores or tries to hide with makeup and blank gazes. She has natural intelligence which has never been challenged or developed. She has human warmth and feminine sensitivity, which she hastens to suppress every time they surface unbidden. She might even have musical talent, but I suspect that drumming, like stripping, is something she can do with her emotions on idle and her brain in neutral.
Peter Sarsgaard's Richard is in even worse shape as a human being. He is a one-trick pony, a software engineer burned out after a year of work that netted him over $1 million, mainly through the entrepreneurial and stock-trading efforts of others. But neither the money nor the work is real to him, and by the time shown in the movie he is essentially ignoring both. Money and job are just forces of nature from which he passively draws sustenance, like the atmosphere and the internet.
Not only does Richard not know what he wants, he (like Florence) does not know how to want. He imagines he wants to be in love with Florence, but he has not the slightest curiosity about who she is. He enjoys the immediate gratification of looking at her and holding her (one would have to be dead not to), but flagrantly misses every opportunity the script presents to ask her what she wants or hopes or dreams -- or even if she has achieved orgasm. Each time she reaches out to him, beyond the terms of their 'contract,' he fails to reciprocate in any meaningful way, reminding her of why she wrote it in the first place.
Strong women sometimes choose intelligent, handsome, but centerless men like Richard as their first husbands because they seem malleable, easily turned into profitable providers and fathers of healthy children. But too often they turn out merely to be Silly Putty, like Richard, unable to hold any shape at all.
Looking ahead, I could see Florence some day putting the pieces of herself together into a real life, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. But Richard? Never.
This is an intelligent and thought-provoking movie. Is it entertaining? Not really. It cuts awfully close to the bone for a lot of folks, including me. Is it erotic eye-candy, as the promoters would have us believe? Again, not really -- except that looking at Molly Parker without makeup (either with or without clothing) is worth a lot more than the price of admission. 7/10