MovieChat Forums > The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) Discussion > The left-out crucial line

The left-out crucial line

posted 17 years ago by SteveReed007
9 replies | jump to latest

Barbra Streisand likes to rewrite the past. This has been obvious for years, and with my having followed her career to varying degrees since 1971, it's become inescapable.

I was forcibly reminded of this when I happened across "Mirror" while channel-surfing, for the first time in at least five years. It was the pivotal scene of the movie, where Rose (Streisand), having left her husband, gets reassurance from her mother (Lauren Bacall) over an early-morning cup of coffee.

Rose (staring at a picture of herself at age five): She was very pretty.
Mother: You were very pretty. You are very pretty. Remember that.

Does that sound like what you heard? No? The reason is: In every version of this film, on tape, disc, or cable, since its initial theatrical release, Bacall's line "You are very pretty" is left out. Only silence remains.

It's impossible to ignore how this omission ends up making Rose into a shallow, manipulative, emotionally immature woman of 50 ... er, 40something ... er, whatever the hell the 55-year-old Streisand was at the moment.

Rose, after this scene, starts on a makeover path, accompanied by remarkable cruelty toward her husband, including not talking to him for months, lying to him about her still loving him, and engaging in flings she doesn't believe in.

Yet leaving out "You are very pretty" on the mother's part gives the distinct feeling that Rose is doing her makeover to compensate for what she doesn't have, doing it "by any means necessary." Not that she's reaffirming and discovering parts of herself, through making regrettable mistakes. She becomes far more unsympathetic.

When she confronts her husband, glammed up, her confidence rings false about what she'd been doing. It becomes failed manipulation — he's flummoxed, not impressed — and not a sign of her achievements.

The heart of Rose's self-assessment is kicked away, and she becomes someone using newly-found beauty (or an attempt at it) as a tool to get her man back — not a growing and advancing human being who adds to her existing substance.

I cannot fathom why Streisand removed that line. It made a marginally well-plotted, beautifully filmed, capably cast film into a manipulative exercise. It made the ending into nonsense: Her husband doesn't know who she is any more, he confesses it, and she doesn't admit to any self-knowledge.

Damn it, lady, stop twiddling. ... Oh, I forgot, you haven't shown your undeniable directing skills in a decade, and probably never will again. Your weakness and our loss.

PS. As I type this, the ending uses a portion of Puccini's aria "Nessun dorma." Except that she loops Pavarotti's singing and creates a second climax Puccini never wrote. Twiddle, twiddle, twiddle ... eh, maybe it's better that she's just an actor for hire these days.
__
Yvaine: What do stars do best?
Captain: Well, certainly not the waltz!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] susansmoose 17 years ago

you are probably right about the missing line, but to me it makes no difference...i still think that the makeover was for rose alone..of course gregory would be "in shock" when he returned...he hadn't seen her for three months and wasn't expecting a "new" rose...but as i've said before, i don't think she did it to impress him, she did it for herself..to see if she really was pretty...i think she decided to see if gregory liked her new look or not...she gave him a chance..if he reacted differently she would have stayed, but he hadn't changed or so she thought...he missed her while he was in europe and he was starting to tell that but she cut him off and left, which was her right..

as far as her "cruelty" remember, he hurt her first and she had every right to respond the way she did...there was no reason that she had to live up to what he wanted and gregory finally realized that...in the end, both learned that they didn't have to "settle" for anything, which was the point of the film and by both of them compromising in the end, both gregory and rose found out a little more about themselves...and ended up with a happier and fulfilling relationship...

the other thing that you are right about was the two endings to nessun dorma...the first one was the 1972 recording with zubin mehta directing...the second ending is similar to another concert done in the 80's with zubin mehta directing as well and pavarotti singing...what i believe is that marvin hamlisch tacked another ending on to the first one to create a swelling of the music...it could also have been made for the movie itself because it doesn't appear anywhere on the soundtrack album....also if you look at the credits toward the end it says "by arrangement"...which could mean a number of things...

you can find both videos on youtube...

[–] SteveReed007 17 years ago

"[...] as far as her 'cruelty' remember, he hurt her first and she had every right to respond the way she did ..."

I can't agree. Gregory made his view of the marriage plain from the beginning. Yet Rose didn't once object as to his view being unrealistic. She wasn't listening. "A man wants me. A good-looking man" — and that's all, initially, she was willing to see.

"there was no reason that she had to live up to what he wanted and gregory finally realized that"

No, she didn't have to, but it was incumbent on her to end the marriage if she couldn't accept what he saw in it, either included or excluded. She shouldn't have strung him along for months while he was out of the country, refusing to talk to him, and only acquiescing when it became time for revenge:

"he missed her while he was in europe and he was starting to tell that but she cut him off and left, which was her right ..."

And that's not cruel? I wouldn't have blamed him for becoming a misogynist after that.

My brother saw the ending with me the other night, and commented in effect, apropos of Eliot Spitzer: "And people wonder why men want prostitutes, without any personal ties, when the women they love end up stringing them along like this." I'd say that has the ring of truth.
__
Yvaine: What do stars do best?
Captain: Well, certainly not the waltz!

[–] lemner 17 years ago

Yet Gregory also said that if she did want sex he could provide that also on occasion, given some notice. That's why she asks him if it's "enough notice" to tell him in the morning that she would like sex that evening, which is funnier coming right after her girl friend tells her that men like women who are "mysterious." Then in their confrontation over sex he says something to the effect that he didn't really want any sex messing up their relationship and that he thought she understood that. I think neither person is cruel, just confused over the sex versus friendship thing, which is hardly surprising given our societal double standards over the same issue.

Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam

[–] loredanaghidarcea 17 years ago

I think the movie is very clear in the fact that both Rose and Gregory are quite messed up until they decide to confront their problems ... it's not just Rose who is the wrong but Gregory as well ... He is being quite cruel himself in pretending something that is no longer real for either of them. He was attracted to her for a long time and denied it ... He left excepting her to just accept the situation. What she deicided to do was perfectly within her right ... I don't think she was even able to talk to Gregory during his trip. Their last night spent together had really hurt her, brought back very old wounds that might not have anything to do with him but that he had a part in bringing to the outside so I don't blame her for not wanting to talk to him. She was angry and she needed time to herself. There is nothing cruel in that.

And what is wrong in trying to look better? She had been neglecting herself for many years, living in the shadows of her sister and mother ... She wanted to make a change in her life and she did. I find that a great thing. It was perhaps what gave her the streangh to leave Gregory when she did and I do believe it was the right thing to do at the time. And I can't see anything manipulative in the way she behaved. She was perfectly honest with what she wanted. She told Gregory and he seemed still in love with his no-sex policy so she left.

Leaving the "you are very pretty" line out seems perfectly in character with her mother, who is not the most generous of women as compliments go ...

ask the spokesperson, I don't have a brain

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jalea 12 years ago

What a negative view of Rose's character. Rose was smart, engaging and funny. However, she felt ugly as long as she could remember. She developed her mind and focused on her career -- her students loved her and she must have been highly respected. She made no effort to look nice, no makeup, frumpy clothes, etc. Gregory was handsome, smart, but lacking in the charm department. His relationships were empty sexual encounters. Physical attraction caused him to loose complete control of himself. In search of a meaningful, sexless relationship he finds Rose. Gregory and Rose are both being selfish and not honest with themselves. Gregory not willing to admit he has a real problem and Rose not willing to admit she wants and is worthy of more. That is what I think the movie is about. It does not make sense to blame either party, they both played a role in the situation they found themselves in.

[–] dollvalley 10 years ago

I don't think the omission of that lines makes any real difference, at least to me. I still think that obviously her mother loves her and thinks she was pretty, because anyway it's a mother telling her daughter she is pretty.
Still it's weird that it was removed.