I didn't find this as bad as some of the reviewers have made this out to be. Of course not having read the novel - (only could find the plot of the novel, from several web sites), I can't really compare what the novelist envisioned versus what this movie brought out. And in addition to it, I will rather do my interpretation of it.
Lucille (Catherine) is the mistress of a rich man Charles (Picoli), living the life of not only luxury but over indulgence. Charles not only over indulges her (having made a croquet field in at his home, for her to practice her below-par - for others, not for him, game - but also doesn't make any demand on her, letting her in fact to live a life of her own way. There is a few hints, that Lucille is mistress by choice, happy to have an unencumbered life, rather than been tied with Charles, despite him not making any demand, even of fidelity on her. Even she walks out on him, with the young, but poor, lover (Antoine), he doesn't try to bribe her back, and even extend all the help and company to her, when she needed. The young lover however is almost in opposite pole, not only in age but in mind too. He wants Lucille to live 'his' life. Even coercing her to fall in line - getting a job, not aborting the baby, watching a horror movie (despite her dislike for it)....
In the end the question is raised - for her as well as viewers - what is true love - or who of the two men is the true lover - unlike what the movie, or rather the critics and the synopsis seem to indicate, the wealth, might be a factor, but not THE factor, which tilts the balance. It all boils down to the physical attraction, which is mutual, versus the all effacing care. And I sympathize with Lucille's choice - who, in the words of her favourite author (in the movie at least), Faulkner - decided that "True love isn't because, but it is despite..." and went ahead with it.
Of course unlike the novel - in the movie it isn't shown where Lucille is heading to. She has called one of them to break off, but that doesn't rally mean she is going to the other, she could as well be walking off, to be "Alone" ? As the novelist herself did in real life - and a few years before this novel was written ? Well there was a difference though - with the young lover(husband) - she did have a child - didn't abort it. The character, as portrayed by Catherine, is free and individualistic (different from feminist) , hence even the third option existed.
Some of the reviews talk about monogamy - but it is interesting to note here - both the men were so. Even when she had walked out, replacement wasn't sought or thought. With a gender reversal of characters - would still it be a monogamy issue ?
Lucille (Catherine) is the mistress of a rich man Charles (Picoli), living the life of not only luxury but over indulgence. Charles not only over indulges her (having made a croquet field in at his home, for her to practice her below-par - for others, not for him, game - but also doesn't make any demand on her, letting her in fact to live a life of her own way. There is a few hints, that Lucille is mistress by choice, happy to have an unencumbered life, rather than been tied with Charles, despite him not making any demand, even of fidelity on her. Even she walks out on him, with the young, but poor, lover (Antoine), he doesn't try to bribe her back, and even extend all the help and company to her, when she needed. The young lover however is almost in opposite pole, not only in age but in mind too. He wants Lucille to live 'his' life. Even coercing her to fall in line - getting a job, not aborting the baby, watching a horror movie (despite her dislike for it)....
In the end the question is raised - for her as well as viewers - what is true love - or who of the two men is the true lover - unlike what the movie, or rather the critics and the synopsis seem to indicate, the wealth, might be a factor, but not THE factor, which tilts the balance. It all boils down to the physical attraction, which is mutual, versus the all effacing care. And I sympathize with Lucille's choice - who, in the words of her favourite author (in the movie at least), Faulkner - decided that "True love isn't because, but it is despite..." and went ahead with it.
Of course unlike the novel - in the movie it isn't shown where Lucille is heading to. She has called one of them to break off, but that doesn't rally mean she is going to the other, she could as well be walking off, to be "Alone" ? As the novelist herself did in real life - and a few years before this novel was written ? Well there was a difference though - with the young lover(husband) - she did have a child - didn't abort it. The character, as portrayed by Catherine, is free and individualistic (different from feminist) , hence even the third option existed.
Some of the reviews talk about monogamy - but it is interesting to note here - both the men were so. Even when she had walked out, replacement wasn't sought or thought. With a gender reversal of characters - would still it be a monogamy issue ?