I watched the film last night, and did find April to be ultimately hollow- in spite of her beautiful ideal - that she needed to go to Paris, and to 'really live'. Before I express why I say this, let me say that I did love this side of her: it's beautiful and daring - needing to really LIVE above all else , but... where is the REST of her??? I wouldn’t call her –nor Frank a 'neurotic' person; I would leave to the likes of Mrs. Givings (choosing to see neuroticism as a lack of relation to life, rather than being 'well-adjusted to a (Sick) society... Nicely encapsulated by her husband turning up his hearing aid at the end.....) Mrs Giving's son, however, seemed to be very alive -or at least insightful, and -thus in my view, - much 'saner' than her, I am sure the writer (of the book – although I haven’t read that,) and director also were kind of intending this! The son was telling 'them' a possible version of the truth in the last scene with him, but it was not clear that it was what April and Frank REALLY felt deep down. Indeed, he seemed the true revolutionary, despite having had Electric Shock 'Therapy'. His view of life seemed ‘dark’, but it had more to it than April’s, which was almost ‘crystalline’, too pure; it was her muse, but it didn’t seem to have any relation to other human beings.
Although (e.g. in a friend or partner) I need a woman to have this need to live above all else, to have the necessity of adventure, (soul-adventure, if you like); one also needs a sense of reality: as their friend told them, 'Europe is not going anywhere'; -they could have gone 2-3 years later... And I'm sure that 'Paris' wouldn't have transformed her missing parts! It's not where you go, or even what you do, but it's your attitude and approach to life wherever you are that is the essential, key element to living a life that is worth living! Paris was surely not without all the frustrating human problems either, that can help cause a sense of alienation. Maybe they could/should have gone there for a long holiday, with an open-mind, just to see...
On the other hand, I find Frank -though not without his shortcomings, - is much more 'there' as a HUMAN being... He had that adventurous-necessity, which was admittedly - almost buried and forgotten, but resurrectable, when she mentioned it to him. However, he had other sides, the pragmatic sides, and a human heart (the way he cried when they sang ‘happy birthday’ to him,) and was much more there and, so, more likeable and relatable-to as a complete human-being. Whereas she was ultimately cold and couldn't and didn't seem to want to contact HIM- as he was (a real-and-likeable-enough mixture of different sides to a human-being).
Moreover, she never REALLY discussed it together with him realistically and fully, with their hearts and minds and souls... On the contrary, she was internally-'locked' into 'Paris' as the be-all-and-end-all, and had an absurdly 'romantic'/unrealistic perception of him - which was HER 'stuff' as 'someone who JUST needed adventure' - and I think that's what he was suffering towards the end of the film. Indeed, when she said 'I love you Frank' earlier on- it was only when he was more into this 'idea of Paris'. She was loving him because he was then resonating with her 'Ideal'. In all these ways, ultimately, she seemed to be a very disturbed and disturbing character: She was so 'alone' in her pure and perfect ideal, I don't think any of us could really contact HER...
Perhaps this film (which always held my interest), as a work-of-art, is asking the question what it is to be really and truly sane in life (the 50’s or 2011).
