If they had emphasized the politics for their break up ...
... instead of his affair would it have made Redford's character more of a creep or more sympathetic?
shareI doubt you'll see this but I was incredibly disappointed when I learned they had cut the real reason for the break up out of the movie. It never felt authentic to me and learning about the missing segment explained my frustration.
As for your question, I don't know if it would have changed the view of Redford's character at all. He was predictable. It simply would have made more sense for Katie's character if they has retained the original explanation.
Just wanted to throw my 2¢ in before IMDb shuts down the message boards for good :/
Hubbell plainly tells Katie that their problems were never about another woman. In other words, their breakup was decidedly about their different views on politics and the corresponding passion (Katie) or lack thereof (Hubbell).
So, maybe the fling angle was added to the last act, but this didn't change the real reason they had to split up.
So, maybe the fling angle was added to the last act, but this didn't change the real reason they had to split up.
--
I think that's the point. Ironically to modern day audiences, I think Hubbell is more detested for the fling...if he had skipped the fling and divorced Streisand over her politics, it would have been more understandable.
Because I think the film is pretty clear in showing that Katie favored her activism over her marriage, at the end of the day. Hubbell felt kinda used -- he brought her to Hollywood and she jumped into the blacklist battle. This was also very dangerous to his career -- he could have lost his studio job and employability anywhere in movies or TV. He had reasons to say goodbye.
Its even possible to surmise that the fling -- with a pretty but decidedly brain-dead woman with no political leanings -- was his way of "getting back" at the wife who picked politics over him.
Unsaid...the fillmakers didn't want to make Redford a TOTAL cad...but there.
Hubbell's got various talents, brawn and brains. He's even got a talent for writing, while Katie can't write (or at least she doesn't think she can). His work gets read out loud by the professor and he manages to sell his story while Katie destroys her work - she destroys something she spent 3+ months working on in between the various jobs she had. (Later on, we see that Katie becomes a literary critic and an unappreciated one at that.)
The whole point of the movie is that Hubbell gets everything on a silver platter. When it comes time to make the hard choices however, he backs down and chooses the easy way out, every single time.
He breaks up with Katie because she doesn't fit in with his circle of friends.
Instead of becoming a writer, he goes to Hollywood with his friend, who's a producer. He becomes a screenwriter, which is decidedly something that's not as esteemed (especially in the 50's I would say) or requires as much hard work.
When it came time to stand up to the director, he backs down and makes all the changes "without resistance", just to make it. He sells his vision and himself out in the process.
When it came time to stand with his pregnant wife, he chooses to have a meaningless affair and take the coward's way out, despite realizing the best years of his life were spent with Katie and that he loves her. I'm fully convinced he had the affair just as an excuse to break up with Katie. He definitely could've gone to France -- many blacklisted actors, writers and artists did just that (and France was still an imperialist empire at that point).
Fast forward some 20 years and he's a TV screenwriter. He ends up totally selling himself out, afraid of becoming a writer. He only cares about status.
To top it all off, he never once went to see his daughter and he ends up refusing an invitation to see her.
...
This character is an utterly detestable and deplorable coward. The worst thing is, we're surrounded by Hubbells.
This character is an utterly detestable and deplorable coward.
---
Well, now that you put it THAT way.
Its funny...I certainly CAN accept those takes on Hubbell and his weakness and his "selling out."
But Robert Redford played him -- at around his peak of physical beauty and manliness -- and boy were the women swooning for him around that time. Plus, the early part of the movie plays on Streisand's absolute infatuation with him, she wants him BAD.
To me, the issue is that one cannot see Hubbell as "all bad" and Katie as "all good." There is something loud and arrogant and combative about Katie that IS off-putting throughout the film. And her embrace of REAL Communism does not strike me as a wise choice. (The film soft pedals her admiration of Stalin, for instance.)
So...a couple who simply shouldn't have been together at all, but because they were Streisand and Redford in 1973...we hoped against hope for it.
---
The worst thing is, we're surrounded by Hubbells.
--
Well, the working world is a hard place. Bosses can make you grovel. Compromise is a way of life in Hollywood(certainly in 2022, where scripts have to be re-written to avoid any number of "controversies" in China and elsewhere.)
Hubbell would be right at home today.
Still, no, I'm personally not in FAVOR of groveling and compromise. Its just hard to fight for yourself. Especially if you have a family to raise.
Which Hubbell did NOT...that was a weak move on his part, yes, ignoring his child? But the movie say Hubbell as a tragic figure by then.