I have read in many reviewsthat this movie is a critism against yuppies which there were plenty of at the 80's, but I don''t really see what it is that makes them think that that this movie has anything to do with that.
Sure Peter Gallagher is a yuppie, but that is not what the movie is all about. Does anyone know anything more than me about the subject?
I would say that it is NICER about yuppies than the films ("Baby Boom", "Wall Street", "Wolf", etc, where Spader plays devious blonde yuppies. I typed the words "devious blonde yuppie" into google and 3 of the first 10 results referred to Spader. It only worked for that spelling. "Yuppy" got nowhere. Or maybe it was the other way round.
I think Peter Gallagher is sexier in "The OC" than he was in this. Do you think I should post that as a separate thread to see if anyone agrees?
Peter Gallagher was the absolute HOTTEST in American Beauty! I want to get BLEEPED by the King!!!!!
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself."
Well, while I wouldn't personally say criticism of the yuppie culture is the primary focus of the film, it does seem to be a strong element. Basically just the idea that just because you have a lot of stuff and your life looks pretty doesn't mean it is. I thought one of the first glaring indications of this theme was when Graham asks Anne what she likes about marriage, and all her comments are basically refering to wealth and stability, rather than love, happiness, or satisfaction...and when Anne finally achieves happiness, she is living the "arty," "minimalist" lifestyle with Graham. And she is working--rather than enjoying the yuppie leisure.
This is my favorite thing about this movie--there are just so many layers and themes--you can watch it a dozen times and get something different out of it every time.
I don't see it..Peter Gallagher's character says he cares about work more than anything, but I didn't get the idea that he was a workaholic or someone obsessed with making and spending money. He did seem to like the prestige of having such a good job, but aside from being selfish, his life was about more than that, and so was Ann's.
It's like Ann's answer when Graham asks how her marriage is going. She has the house and the husband with the good job and she takes it for granted that there's more than that.
-Caroline
"Let the lovefeast begin."
"People are dying. The dialogue has to be up to it."
Maybe John didn't know what he wanted.
In contrast to Cynthia, who knew exactly what she wanted!
I think Peter Gallagher's character said that "work was everything" (1) to make it appear that Ann left him because he was a workaholic, not an adulterer, and (2) to make it appear that he didn't much care that she left because he had his work. That pretense gives the fact that he's about to be fired, or at least called on the carpet by his boss, more meaning.
shareI think it goes deeper than the "work" issue - yes that is one blatant difference between Graham and John but the film is also highly critical of the yuppie as a superficial, uncaring and selfish character with no intellectual or emotional depth. John is not remotely interested in his wife's feelings and emotional & sexual happiness, yet when it comes to his own pride being hurt, he suddenly becomes the jealous and possessive husband.
shareIf what is meant by "yuppies" is that group of people who are characterized by a self-centered preoccupation with a life of superficial pleasure indulgence, then I would say, yes this movie is a criticism of "yuppies". It does this by illustrating how the "yuppie" life is ultimately unrewarding & shallow and prevents you from making a deeper connection to any other person, and consequently unable to either love or be loved - even when you have contact with others who do have a deeper side. At the most you are pitied.
(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE
I notice that when John is trying to work out why Ann has gone off him, he mentions that he is straight and making pretty good money. Why he thinks his earning power is a turn-on escapes me. Okay, if he were broke, that would be a problem. Ditto if he were gambling away their money. But, whilst "no money" could easily be a turn-off, "making pretty decent money" or whatever he says is not exactly a turn-on IMHO.
----------------------
This is nicebat, my cyberpet.
Radiant,
Very good! Money won't buy happiness, but the lack of it brings misery straight to your doorstep and you don't even have to pick it out and order from the catalogue.
(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE
:) Thank you, simplypm2004.
----------------------
Nicebat and I had to party.
[deleted]
They do tend to be self absorbed.
shareThe only reason people don't call affluent, upwardly mobile, young adults "yuppies" today is that they didn't come of age in the flower power era. You can't be a sell out, if you never had integrity in the first place, I guess.
share