MovieChat Forums > Barefoot in the Park (1967) Discussion > Ambivalence

Ambivalence

posted 18 years ago by amadeus533
5 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this film for the first time today on TCM. I felt like I identified with the energy and adventurous spirit of Corie, and saw a lot of parallels between Paul and my fiancé. We have been a moderating force for one another, just like those two characters! I’ve been thinking about it since it ended, because while I do think it is a charming comedy, there are other parts of it that I feel ambivalent about.

I think a lot of Corie's feelings of frustration at Paul stems from the fact that she has way to much energy, and not much of an outlet for it -- she is simply frustrated because she doesn't have enough to do, and puts all of that energy into the hope that something exciting will happen when Paul comes home. The apartment is too small for her to be a "real housewife" -- you can only clean so much in a space that small, and her stove doesn't even work -- so all she has to do throughout the day is wait for Paul to come home. And, Paul is busy with his law cases, so he can't spend too much time entertaining her once he is home. Not a great environment for breeding self-worth, especially for a newly married woman, who is probably dealing with a lot of other identity issues. On the other hand, I feel for him, because he has more responsibility than he bargained for -- he has a life outside of her that is time consuming, but she doesn't have much of a life outside of him (yet, anyway) and needs more from him than he can give.

The feminist in me doesn’t like how Corie eventually becomes tamed -- it reminds me of Jo in Little Women and Marianne in Sense and Sensibility -- her mother says its her job to take care of him and make him feel important. Why is it not the other way around? It seems like Corrie is the one who needs a little self-esteem boost!

I think I'll imagine that Corie gets a job and funnels all that energy into her work -- that may be the best way for the two of them to continue happily ever after.

I wonder how Jane Fonda feels about this film, given her interest in feminism.

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø

[–] billgbg 18 years ago

"she is simply frustrated because she doesn't have enough to do, and puts all of that energy into the hope that something exciting will happen when Paul comes home."

That's a good point. I thing that the entire world around Cory doesn't move at her speed. She's in constant motion, inciting things or provoking things if answers don't come back in snappy fashion. These days she'd be given Ritalin and told to "chill, sister." But of course who wants to live now?

A lot of the action makes me wonder what Cory's first kiss with Paul. How many hours/days did that last? They must've had some scenery chewing dates before putting on rings. So yes. She's a real wild child, but now Paul's ready to settle into domesticity, and she must learn to stop stripping off her clothes to attract attention and be a lady; late sixties style.

[–] eac1027 18 years ago

This is a very cute movie but it definetly shows its date. I saw this on Broadway last year and it didn't do very well, and closed quickly. An article that I read about it said that Corie's character is so dated that it didn't do well with modern audiences. It said that she basically has no life outside of her husband, and with no career, children, girlfriends (that we see), hobbies or activities she likes, house to clean, and a busy husband, it appears that all she does all day is wait for Paul to come home. The article went on to say that it is hard for people today to identify with a character with no purpose of her own. However, hadn't the feminist movement already started by then? Anyway, if I were Paul, I would have told her to get a hobby, join some sort of club, or get a job, before they started a family, because she seemed to be really bored, and wanting a purpose other than picking fights with Paul.

[–] elisedfr 12 years ago

I agree it's kind of hard to picture a woman with no job, children, hobbies... even in the late sixties. But I think an important point of the film is that after all, at the end of the film, they have only been married for two weeks ! (and one week spent as a honeymoon holiday at the Plaza). So...nothing tells us Corie won't take on a job afterwards, or go back to work if she did work before getting married. She acts completely devoted in her married life because it is so new and exciting for her, like setting up the apartment, and making social dinner plans. Truly, she didn't have much time or desire to do anything else then -but what after a few weeks or months ? I think Neil Simon's big idea was to show an opposite couple, discovering each other through a short run in daily life. Maybe he thought it would seem clearer if the wife didn't work and so was completely free for fun -like Charles Boyer's character who appears to be in retirement. And so Paul who lives a conventional life with working hours and a demanding job seems not quite able or willing to enjoy the same things.

" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris

[–] TheManInOil 9 years ago

I think in general you are right, and certainly the advice she receives applies just as much to him as to her.

However, I don't think it was intended or framed as a feminism issue. I think Corie is meant to address the wild youth of the time and send a message that living just for fun isn't ultimately going to work. One has to grow up.

It doesn't mean no longer having fun, but when Paul gets hammered and starts acting recklessly, it illustrates the result if you throw caution entirely to the wind.

After all, Corie's passion wasn't based in her female-ness, for lack of a better term. It was based in her willful, childish attitude. She expected everyone to want whatever she wanted, which isn't realistic. She was the one failing to compromise, although Paul was somewhat guilty of that as well (but according to him he was indulgent at times and she just failed to take notice).

[–] JohnnyJohnson (282) 10 months ago

I felt that Corie was bipolar or borderline personality disorder. I don't find mental illness all that funny. The comedy doesn't work much anymore because we are more aware of these disorders and have compassion and not just find it hilarious (?).

Also, these days a couple probably would get to know each other better, live together to see if they are compatible before getting married. (though it's hard to imagine Redford didn't know how unbalanced she was when they were dating...). I know that way of thinking is considered immoral and fast and loose, but living together before marriage should be a requirement before marriage. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" would be something my mother used to say. In Redford's case it should be "Why buy the cow when it should be flavored with Lithium beforehand to be tolerable?"