Netflix May December (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

If this is based on the Mary Kay Letourneau case, and Julianne Moore is playing the Mary Kay Letourneau analog, I hope they don't try to justify her predatory behavior toward her student.

 

[Joe Wong]

I think the lack of resolution is the point.

Which is what I found unsatisfying.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Which is what I found unsatisfying.

So that begs the question -- and you'll probably have to answer in a spoiler tag -- what hypothetical resolution would you have found more satisfying?

I hope they don't try to justify her predatory behavior toward her student.

Moore is playing the Letourneau analog. However, he wasn't her student in this fictionalized version. Here, she worked with him at a pet store.

 

[JoeStemme]

I think that feeling is absolutely intentional.

Actually, there are three levels at work here with TV movie within a movie, plus the new "Indie" film that Portman's character is playing. The script and Haynes' direction also creates another degree of complexity with the use of Legrand's score and a sort of faux reality

 

[Joe Wong]

So that begs the question -- and you'll probably have to answer in a spoiler tag -- what hypothetical resolution would you have found more satisfying?

Spoiler

I would say that the film is trying to show that, beneath the initial veneer of calm and don't-give-a-damn attitude exhibited by Gracie and Joe, there are all sorts of frictions and tensions ready to bubble to the surface.

We see hints of this under-the-surface unease with Joe's text conversation with an unseen "friend", as well as Gracie's breakdown when a baking order is cancelled.

And then it culminates with Joe questioning whether he was too young, and Gracie asserting he was the one with the power, when it's clear she was/is the one in control.

But there's nothing resolved after that. Joe's earlier conversation with his son (and resulting breakdown) on the rooftop shows he understands his son's desire to get out of the house, or to get away from the powderkeg situation.

What's to stop Joe from doing the same, especially once the twins are off to college? Or he could have come to some sort of agreement with Gracie, whether it's her acknowledging that what they did was wrong, or he needs to find a new path, or something else. The scene of Joe in tears while watching the graduation is heartbreaking, but he had already initiated the conversation, so he needs to force the situation. Or is he so concerned about Gracie's fragility he can't face her reaction? He's taken the first step, he's even ready to go on a trip with his texting friend... what's stopping him?

Even if he's not ready to leave Gracie, there should have been a different outcome for Joe. I'm not saying it needs to be a "happy" outcome, but at least something that resolves the underlying tension.

And then the sting at the end when Gracie says she talks to Georgie every day and tells Elizabeth not to believe his tale about her brother abusing her. What was that all about? Seemed to come out of the blue. Raised more questions than answers. Again, unresolved.

Anyway, just my initial thoughts after seeing the film.

 

[Jason_V]

I think the lack of resolution is the point.

If that's the point, it's not my kind of movie. Nothing "new" was learned by any of the characters, no insight into who they are, no changes in the dynamics the movie started with. Movies, and stories, need to have a beginning, middle and end. An arc for the characters. I don't see that here for anyone, aside from (maybe) Natalie Portman. The last scene...

Spoiler: Spoiler

Almost screams to me she understands Gracie getting with a much younger man and wants to channel that in the character she's playing in the movie being filmed AND in her life. But why? What part is alluring, captivating or necessitating this change in who she is? Is she always like this? Is this a pedophilia-type situation?

Joe begins to change at the end of the movie, but the movie randomly stops without following through.

I think that feeling is absolutely intentional.

Agreed. I didn't mean that as a bad thing, but one thing the 90's-ish TV movies do better than May December is buy into the concept: music, acting, camera angles, camp. This movie leaves the fun of those films out, at least IMHO.

 

[Joe Wong]

For what it's worth, the Golden Globes nominated this film in the Best Musical/Comedy category.

Huh???

I didn't get any "comedic" or "musical" vibes from the film.

 

[TravisR]

Sorry, totally wrong thread

 

[Jason_V]

Sorry, totally wrong thread

I was gonna say...we did not watch a musical version of May December!

 

[TravisR]

I was gonna say...we did not watch a musical version of May December!

If there was any doubt, my previous post proved that I'm a moron.



Nobody better hit the "Agreed" button.

 

[Joe Wong]

I was gonna say...we did not watch a musical version of May December!

Now that would be funny!

 

[Jake Lipson]

 

[Jake Lipson]

Here is a featurette where Todd Haynes discusses the ending and the intentions behind it. Spoilers, obviously, so don't click if you don't want to know.



And some commentary with the actors:

|

 

[Jake Lipson]

Mary Kay Letourneau’s Ex-Husband Vili Fualaau Reacts to ‘May December’: “I’m Offended”

Now 40, the inspiration for Charles Melton's Golden Globe-nominated character wonders why he was never approached by the filmmakers: "I'm alive and well."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Jake Lipson]

Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore Respond to Vili Fualaau’s ‘May December’ Critique: “It’s Not Meant to Be a Biopic”

Both actresses said they were sorry to hear about Fualaau's criticism but emphasized 'May December' was not intended to tell his exact story.

www.hollywoodreporter.com