I think this film depicts the most terrifying, bleak and nihilistic view of human relationships that I've ever seen on screen. My God, that ending... I saw the film yesterday and I still am in some kind of state of shock -yeah, I know I'm not very original-. The "funny" thing is that the story takes place in the seventies, you know, Studio 54, Warhol and all that mytified epoch of sexual freedom. I'm 35 years old and was just a child at that time. So the general question I would like to ask the people who lived in the 70's is: besides the fact that this is only a movie, would you nevertheless say that the description of the social context is accurate? Is it anywhere close to what was like living in NY at that time?
I lived in NYC in the 70s, not far from where the woman whose murder LFMG is based on lived. Don't know what you mean by "mystified epoch of sexual freedom." The city nightlife was wild--fabulous discos, and sex and drugs were abundant. The movie tells a story that is meant to be dark. But I can tell you my real-life experience was one of incredible fun during those years. I remember them very fondly.
Roseann Quinn, the real Theresa Dunn, was a reckless woman into S&M--hardly the typical 70s New Yorker. As this cutting from Wikepedia explains, she was very much responsible for her fate:
"Quinn developed a habit of meeting and taking home men who were, as one writer put it, "rough and unattractive... who weren't her social equal, her mental equal, or her equal at anything."Her next-door neighbor would hear screams coming from Quinn's apartment. Once she intervened and saw a man dashing out of Quinn's apartment yelling obscenities and found Quinn disheveled and bruised, with a black eye, sobbing.
"What on earth possessed you to bring him up?" the neighbor asked. Quinn didn't reply. The neighbor tried to console her, saying "It's all over now, at least you'll know better ... [A]fter that it happened a lot," the neighbor said. "Every two weeks or so... It always sounded like a fight. I guess it was some kind of rough sex. Some people get off on that and she must have had to be raped or kicked around or something to feel any excitement or thrill."
saying she is responsible for it is pushing it... her actions and decisions may have brought her closer to an element capable of these actions... but she is not responsible for someone killing her...
[ when you play with fire, you'll get burned. she brought it on herself. not that it condones her being murdered, mind. ]
So if I decide to walk off the sidewalk into a street and get hit by a drunk driver it would be my fault because I know that there is chance a drunk driver may be there?
This film is rather enigmatic as far as what exactly it is trying to say at the end of it all........I have always took from it that the sexual revolution was like a cultural adolescence, something we all need to go through on the way to adulthood but it can be dangerous. In her extreme need to rebel against her family's suffocatingly conservative Catholicism she went down one too many dark alleys mentally/morally and physically speaking, ones that even her semi-rebellious sister didn't even dare to travel.
If you play with fire you MIGHT get burned is as accurate a description as any IMO.
So if I decide to walk off the sidewalk into a street and get hit by a drunk driver it would be my fault because I know that there is chance a drunk driver may be there?
Of course not. But a more accurate analogy would be driving drunk down a slick, winding road on rainy nights. Walking off a sidewalk is one thing; bringing strange men to your apartment for rough intercourse is something different.
(In response to the first comment) I can't even express how incredibly offensive your review is. Saying it is her fault that she got brutally murdered and raped is a horrible way to express whatever it is you were trying to get across. People that tend to be reckless in the way that Roseann Quinn was have some form of emotional distress causing them to act in the manner they do and to make these decisions. She met her killer when she was at the bar across the street with an acquaintance , the man she brought back was a friend of his. She should not have been so trusting, but seeing as they had a mutual acquaintance, she could never have known he was psychotic. Her mistake was being to trusting. She in know way deserved this and she was probably sexually assaulted sometime in her past, frequently when someone is raped, they become sexually promiscuous, feeling their body is of no value and the pattern frequently repeats itself without getting help or therapy. It very much sounds like you are saying that victims of sexual assault bring it upon themselves. I would be ashamed to make such a comment and so should you.
Like most people who whine about "PC BS," you're making the mistake of conflating some of the basic attributes of being a decent, thinking human being with "political correctness."
But way to project your own inadequacies and poor reasoning onto others. Hint: There's nothing naive about realizing that victim blaming is wrong - it's not that it's "inappropriate" or "not PC," it's that victim blaming represents flat out bad thinking. It's naive and foolish to believe that you're doing something brave or "not PC" by blaming a murder victim for her fate - particularly when attitudes like yours are still so prevalent in our society.
Hint: A woman who walks around scantily clad and ends up getting raped did NOT "bring it upon herself." This film presents a slightly more complicated situation, but it's still objectively, unmistakeably, entirely the fault of the perpetrator of the crime.
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here
What a silly statement. You are talking PC BS, and it's hilarious. Leave your house unlocked--it won't be your fault if someone steals everything, will it?
Sorry if I missed some niceties by skipping all four pages of comments (life is too short), but seriously, rrb is hardly saying the original real-life model for the novel deserved to die. He's saying she put herself in dangerous situations with dubious characters, so her demise wasn't entirely unpredictable. Serial bad judgment or offbeat compulsive sexual tastes doesn't mean you "deserve to die," though it may mean you leave yourself more open to violence from strangers than otherwise. I don't judge anyone's sexual behavior, but if they are promiscuous in a way that invites stranger-danger, then obviously they are at higher risk of personal harm.
You hit the nail on the head, ofumalow. I'll add that 1970's New York was a city where over 400 violent crimes, and 5-6 murders, were committed EVERY DAY. Some days, the murder rate was as high as 12. That was no secret - those of us who were young and partying in NYC back then knew the dangers. Anyone who sought out potentially violent sex partners was playing against bad odds.
I would say that the depiction of NY sexual freedom in the 1970's is accurate in this film. I was on the young side when the film came out, but from living in NY, reading a lot about the culture, and experiencing life there firsthand I would agree that the depiction is right. This was the disco, pre-HIV/AIDS era, so people were a lot freer to have multiple partners and do all kinds of drugs. I would say yes.
I am from that era and lived in Chicago. There was lots of easy "bar" sex. Some gals would leave bars and nightclubs with guys at the drop of a hat. I had a bunch of "one nighters", and the girls always let me know what they wanted. I never asked them if they wanted to leave, they made the moves.
I was a teenager in the 70s but not living in a big city. This film was a shcck to my parents and their friends it came out and made them fear city life and "progress". I thought the film distorted a lot, especially the idea that she was teaching deaf children by day and doing drugs and sex all night. The story was not very well developed at all. I felt it was a bad imitation of what Scorscese does so well.
"I was a teenager in the 70s but not living in a big city. This film was a shcck to my parents and their friends it came out and made them fear city life and "progress". I thought the film distorted a lot, especially the idea that she was teaching deaf children by day and doing drugs and sex all night. The story was not very well developed at all. I felt it was a bad imitation of what Scorscese does so well. "
Eh, you do realize this movie is based on a true story right? Roseann Quinn WAS a teacher for deaf students during the day and she DID use drugs and have random casual sex after school/by nights.
On New Years Day in 1973 she picked up a drifter at a bar and he murdered her.
I graduated high school in 1978. The 70's were great. Just about anything can be harmful when done in excess or when done contrary to one's values. Just think of how, throughout the ages, religion has led to witch burnings, wars, etc.
I live now (and lived then) in Manhattan in the West 70s, very near to where the real girl lived and died. In the interim the area has become very "high end" but even then it was a nice neighborhood where a lot of artistic people lived: actors, writers, musicians, editors, etc. It was not seedy in the least and the bar, Tweeds, was a great neighborhood hangout.
It was the era of discos and Quinn would have had to go downtown to enjoy them. A louche place called Plato's Retreat (where Bette Midler got her start) was in that neighborhood, though. Free love was in the air but not everyone joined the orgy. I certainly did not.
Evidently Quinn lived a double life, squeaky clean teacher by day, cruiser by night. The movie portrays this double life but I feel it fails at portraying the girl's <i>inner<i> life or giving credence to her attraction for such awful men. The Keaton role is written as a pretty young woman who enjoys her sexuality; the real woman's psychosexuality would have been more complex.
Did you read Closing Time: The True Story of the "Goodbar" Murder by New York Times journalist Lacey Fosburgh? I read it many years ago. As I recall, I thought the fictional story was simplistic beside this one. I don't remember if I thought one or the other was better written as a story, and I never saw the film.
What an interesting sig line! I didn't know anybody still read him. Makes me want to read him again.
Dude, where do you get your information? Bette Midler got her start in the very early 70s (before Plato's Retreat existed) in the gay Continental Baths (Barry Manilow was her accompaniest). And the bar was the All State Cafe.
Dude, where do you get your information? Bette Midler got her start in the very early 70s (before Plato's Retreat existed) in the gay Continental Baths (Barry Manilow was her accompaniest). And the bar was the All State Cafe.
I realize your post is from 5 years ago, but I wanted to reply.
I just watched the movie, and your post is very insightful. I agree completely that the movie sanitized the complex psyche of Theresa/Roseann. My hunch is that some of the behaviors Roseann exhibited in life would cause the viewer to lose sympathy for her.
Thanks for your insight into the neighborhood and culture at that time. I knew of Plato's Retreat as being where Bette Midler's career began to take off, but wasn't aware it was in this neighborhood.
I've seen some photos of the neighborhood at that time, and your descriptions provide excellent context.
I was 15 when this movie came out and I thought it depicted the times pretty well. Even though I am in Los Angeles...you must remember that communication was strictly by phone or friends or bars. If you missed a phone call at home you didnt have a date, so bars were packed. Everyone went to bars. But I hesitate to say that Theresa Dunn got what she deserved. This opinion is strictly for those people that believe in cliches. The problem with Teresa Dunn is that she didnt know who she was. Therefore she had no idea what to look for in a man. She tried to figure it out by breaking away from her family but they did not give here the skills to identify people different from themselves. This point is illustrated time and again in the film. Theresa was bound to meet up with violence because she could not sense violence. She came from a sheltered family that only talked in terms of black and white. She missed all the nuances of what to say or what to do when faced with a stranger.
I have to say I find a whole lot of this discussion disturbing. I, myself, was a little young for that bar scene in the 70's but I remember well enough. Saying it was a different time or different circumstances does not mean that such behavior wasn't considered dangerous. Yes, there were a lot of people behaving in that manner - there were also plenty who were not.
If I suggested then (or now) that you routinely go out into public and bring 2 or 3 complete strangers into your house (say for "dinner" instead of sex): I would be lectured on how absolutely insanely dangerous it is. What neighborhood is somewhat irrelevant because criminals know to go hunting where the deer are, so to speak. Bottom line, like the rest of the crowd participating in that scene, Theresa Dunn simply chose to ignore the dangers of that lifestyle. I really think that's what Robert Brooks was trying to convey: Miserable people make miserable lifestyle choices that lead to really bad results. In a nutshell, a cautionary tale - certainly. But bear in mind that the culture was starting to fade away by then. I know I didn't make it through that era without losing people I cared about to the negatives of the drug culture and later, aids. And the Theresa Dunn character had just resolved to changer her life, but not in time ie one often doesn't get a second chance.
But use sex and "free love" as motivation and suddenly the very high probability that constant exposure to complete strangers will result in an experience that will cause harm evaporates right along with all other logic. Hmmm. One shouldn't bring strangers home unless your gonna spread your legs for them? Tsk. Tsk.
And - FYI - although I agree that the free wheeling sexual attitude did NOT cause HIV/AIDS, didn't it do a bang up job of making it an unstoppable plague that has claimed so many, many people. That supposedly non-indulgent a-moralist that had to wave HIS little judgmental finger needs to wake up and smell the coffee. It's certainly been the mother of all hangovers after a very long party, huh?
Sexual promiscuity has consequences. Always has, always will.
Deal with it then simply admit the double standard.
Or continue to ignore the fact that 1 in 4 women under the age of 30 has genital herpes. And most will die early because the drugs used to "control" that disease destroys the liver before the age of 50. Didn't know it and don't see that on the Valtrex commercials, do you? NIMBY always applies. If it were measles instead of herpes, people would actually ask questions.
One of the reasons my generation wentso "Alex P. Keaton" was that, even as a young children, we couldn't ignore the destruction of that culture. And, maybe that generation couldn't see it because of all the brain damage from routine drug use. LOL. If you were participating, might you just have a little bias in your memory of the experience? Your food for thought from someone who had to watch that same generation become the managers and CEO's and make business decisions stoked on cocaine through a lot of the 80's and 90's.
So I'll add this to the answers to the original question is this: Yes, it really was like that in the city. But also bear in mind that even more people moved out to suburbia as a result. In part to get away from that culture, and in part due to other prominent social afflictions of the time, such as race riots, cults and gangs. Theresa Dunn's choice to work and live there, given her roots, would have been considered risky and brave for a young woman of that time. (Considering she was helping inner city deaf children).
My two older siblings came of age in the 1970's and they enjoyed the bar/disco party scene. But they enjoyed it in moderation as did many people they know. Anything taken to the extreme will kill you. Partying to the extreme can kill you too.
Socially men and women were changing. Getting married right after high school or college was on the decline. People enjoyed their new adult freedom. A small few enjoyed it way too much.
Every larger town had a Studio 54 type place for cruising for sex. The town I grew up in had two such places there were very popular and No, they were nothing compared to the night life of a major city. But where we lived this was the best of the best.
Things changed for me and my younger siblings because AIDS emergered in the early 1980's. When we came of age the rules and the game changed big time.
Yeah, there was excess during the late 70s disco era, but by going "so Alex P. Keaton" at the beginning of the 80s, we went from one extreme to another. As someone else rightly pointed out to you, everything in moderation.
You know what? I like your theory. Yes, as we saw in the movie, Theresa did come from a family with extremely conservative parents, so her picking up complete, unsavory strangers may have been her way of rebelling. In that sense, she went from one extreme to another. Never a good idea, of course, but when you're too sheltered like Theresa was, it's very difficult to make it on your own.
My general experience parallels Teresa's. I was 22 when the film was released and living in New Town, a hip section of Chicago's north side. (Note: the film takes place in Chicago, and Teresa is a product of the Windy City, probably from the south side, given her blue-collar Catholic roots -- but the film doesn't make that clear, I don't think.)
I found it tremendously exciting to be free from the university I had attended (just north of Chicago) and living on my own in the big city, with unknown adventures ahead. The casual attitude toward recreational drugs (even cocaine), alcohol, and sex -- carried over from the '60s -- was quite prevalent. I was not a heavy user of any drug, but I never remember worrying about DUIs or DWIs, and never knew of anyone busted for using or dealing (although I'm sure that was happening).
The hottest bars and clubs in Chicago were/are in the Rush St. area, and some scenes were shot there. (There's even a glimpse of one of Chicago's famous deep-dish pizza places.) There were plenty of young women, all around town, looking for the same thing the men were after. I may not have scored ("hooked up" to you young fry) like Lucky Lockbar (above); however, I got my share, and usually felt like it was there for the taking. For those nights when I didn't score -- or couldn't be bothered to go out -- there was a plentiful supply of porn available from the friendly neighborhood porn shop just down the block. I'm talking 8mm films; this was before VCRs! (I just remembered the scene in the film in which they're watching a porn flick with a projector. That's how it was.)
I figure that teens and young adults today are having as much sex as we did in the '70s. The difference being that AIDS was unknown (in America), herpes was just getting on the radar, and everything else could be cured with shots or pills. In retrospect, it was stupid, but I NEVER used a condom. And I can't remember any sex partner asking me to. Oh, one last thing. No shaved twats. Every pie came hair a la mode. The way nature intended.
So, those are my memories of that era and locale -- and there isn't a bad or sad one in the bunch. Thanks for asking.
"Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man."
I am a gay dude, was very young and sexually active in the 70s and yes, went home with many strangers, boys, men, leather, drugs, ruff action. I never thought a thing about it, until this movie came out. AIDS came out about the same time. Me and my wild friends settled down, stopped drugs and stopped going to gay bars. We are all still alive and not dead from HIV because of this movie. Most dudes I knew back then are gone today.