this movie has TWO FACES.... - The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) Discussion

[–] Kamille8 17 years ago

To me this movie is wonderful and definetly one of my favorites. I don't think he discovered his love for her becasuse of the make over I think it was because she left him. Her make over was for empowerment for herself. Of course Pierce Bronson's character as shallow as he was wanted her now that she was beautiful.

He clearly says several times after her makeover that he loved the OLD Rose. I think you missed the underlying message which is he used this bullsh-- theory thinking it would prevent him from a broken heart but it failed him in the end because he feel for the "ugly duckling".

reply

[–] rondine 17 years ago

I appreciate your affection for this movie... but no, I didn't miss the underlying message. I heard him say over & over that he loved the OLD Rose. My point is the screenwriters' need to put in this whole makeover -this "I now feel empowered" part of the movie for her. Don't tell me when they're playing that cheesy music in the back while she looks at herself lifting weights at the gym that it's not sending a mixed message. It is.

They could've acheived the same thing by having her separate from him w/out the whole makeover aspect.

it sends a mixed message.

reply

[–] EsmeW 17 years ago

I always felt that she did the makeover to try and impress Gregory, following his rejection of her, and also to feel better about herself. But of course that didn't work. Gregory simply freaked out at the "New Rose". I think she started feeling better about herself after seeing the picture of her younger self, and finally seeing that she was pretty. She'd already started to relax with the dieting (sharing her salad with her best friend for half the cheeseburger).

reply

[–] susansmoose 17 years ago

i never thought at any time that she did it to impress gregory..i always thought that she did it for herself...i think the combination of gregory leaving on his book tour and the fact that her mother found the picture pushed her into the makeover...she says so herself when she's talking to him the night he comes back

and i don't think that gregory wanted her back because he was under the assumption that she was with alex...as far as i can tell, he fell in love with her long before that...the first evidence of that is at the restaurant when she gets some of the salad dressing on her clothes...the dizzy spell says it all...it was only heightened after they kiss...

that's just my opinion

reply

[–] dmong 17 years ago

I think you're spot on about him falling for her after he had the dizzy spell in the restaurant. His whole premise was to find a woman he could connect with and didn't want physical attraction to get in the way. I think he started to fall apart near the end because his original theory was being debunked and he now had the "total package" of the perfect woman. What man doesn't want that?

By the way, this is one of my all time favorite movies. Great acting, great cinematography, great storyline, romance, comedy and a happy ending. Hollywood at it's best.

reply

[–] I-Sense-A-Plot 16 years ago

I have to disagree because the person Gregory Larkin was in love with wasn't the "transformed" version of Rose, but plain Rose.

It wasn't the transformation that made the difference but Rose taking control of her life.

reply

[–] rondine 16 years ago

You guys are missing my point.

I didn't say that Gregory fell in love with the "transformed" Rose, nor was I suggesting that her transformation was for him.

I am merely saying that to me, this movie sends that mixed message by Alex (I think that's his name, the Pierce Brosnan character) going after her - and then Gregory getting freaked out about her new look.

They could've COMPLETELY skipped that, and had her do a different kind of empowerment - meditation, joinging a yoga group, going to a restraunt alone & being comfortable with herself or something other than the ... before/after makeover.
It just bugs the hell out of me in what is otherwise a fabulous movie.

but that's just me, apparently LOL! ;)

reply

[–] I-Sense-A-Plot 16 years ago

The point of pierce bronson's character falling for Rose after she "transformed" is to point out how shallow it is to focus on looks the way we do as a society. SO I think the movie was trying to make the point you were trying to make.

This is why Rose's sister is unable to have a real relationship, because her entire life and all of the men who have loved her have only loved her because of the way they looked. Which basically shows that she may be beautiful but her life is empty.

reply

[–] rondine 16 years ago

I do agree that the Bronson character is shallow, and I agree that there's a point being made there about his lack of depth and how "what's essential is invisible to the eye."

To play devil's advocate, doesn't it almost seem unfair though for someone like Rose's sister to go through life not knowing which men really like HER and not just how she looks? Not being a winner in the "genetic lottery" I have always felt a little bad for people like that.
But I think she is in part to blame too, it would appear from the Alex character that she too is choosing based on looks.

But there is more to my complaint than just those 2 points (see above thread) I still feel that her whole "I'm empowering myself by changing my body while I look in the mirror pumping iron" is the same thing the media feeds us about how we look being so important.

I would've liked to see him come back from his trip, have her not have changed at all physcially, and he could've still come to the realization that he missed HER, not what she looked like.
but that's just me....

reply

[–] I-Sense-A-Plot 16 years ago

You know, I think I agree with you about her sister's life being unfair as well. They are both victims of their appearance although, from what Rose is told by her mother, she is also beautiful. Rose just doesn't know she's beautiful and hides behind dark baggy clothes as an excuse for being "unattractive".

I don't agree that the pumping iron was to say that it made her feel more empowered. She wanted to prove to herself that she was attractive and that she CAN, if she so chooses, would be able to conform to the standards of beauty. She wanted to take control, that to me is what is was about.

I agree 100% that Iw ould have liked him to come back from his trip and realised he loved her without having her change her appearance. That would have been awesome because personally, I didn't like the poshed up rose either.

reply

[–] rondine 16 years ago

I sense a true thinker in you, "I-Sense-A-Plot!"

I agree that Rose just didn't think of herself as beautiful. One would be tempted to say that her physcial makeover helped her to believe what her mother told her. Unfortunately, women in general - not all, tend not to believe it until it is reflected by a man. (see "The Rainmaker" for more examples of this.)

I do agree that they are both victims of their appearance. In fact, in one of my classes at college, we talked about stereotypes- and I go to a school famous (or infamous) for partying. On any given day there are tons of blonde, beautiful, skinny girls walking around. I've been in class with some of them- quite frequently (in my limited experience) they have been sorority girls that are more interested in their nail polish than cultural awareness. That said- I look around sometimes and think- some of these girls may be fighting their own stereotype. Perhaps they are studious and responsible (and don't flake out on group projects) and get tired of defending themselves against people who think they are just another pretty face.

Hiding behind baggy clothes is a choice. If you are trying to be comfortable on a 6 hr flight, it is the right choice. If you are going out on a date, a wrong one. But then Rose didn't go out on dates without the usual things (dress, hair and makeup) so this begs the question: "Can someone who isn't "dolled" up the way she was after her 'makeover' attract a nice looking man?" I say nice looking because don't forget the horrible way she treated Barry... until she saw him with another woman & how happy he made her & realized that maybe he wasn't such a bad catch after all! Let's not forget what that whole scenario says about looks being important.

The scene with her pumping iron annoyed me because there's the cheesy music in the background and her pumping a barbell looking at herself in a mirror in a superficial kind of way. And as for her being able to "conform" I find nothing empowering about that. If you want to take control- resist conforming! Either way most control issues are an illusion anyway. But then I guess it depends on what's important to each of us. To me, the outside is the least important.

reply

[–] ozlembal 16 years ago

Rose changed her appearance because she thought she isn't beautiful because of her mom. She was thinking that her mom found her ugly, and as mothers' thoughts and how they treated their children are important during growing up, her mother's attitude about how she looks affected her immensely, after leaving Gregory even she mentioned to her mom that while she was a little girl, her mom told her to lift her nose with her finger, that way she made her mother getting aware of how that saying affected her feeling about her look. Although her mother didn't mean to her, she still is affected negatively.

I think changing her appearance is nothing to do with empowering, she knew that Bronson's character going to want her after she changed her appearance because she told him to stop while making out, and told him she always waited for that moment, and she found nothing about him except his being attractive, that way she gave the message relationships aren't all about looks, but about something profound Bronson's character is unable to figure out.

At first she thought Gregory didn't love her because he refused to have sex even she thought it is because of her look. She didn't listen to him when he returned from europe. He said he wanted older Rose but he didn't refer to how she looked but her personality. After she left him, he got crazy, and turned out a mad person not because he missed her older look but his conversations with her thus her personality.

After her mom gave her old photograph, and told how beautiful baby girl she was, she overcame her lack of confidence about her look, and realized that her mom has never thought she wasn't beautiful, all her mother worried about was seeing her daughter happy. After her conversation with her mom she had no doubt about Gregory truly loves her no matter how she looks.

That is my perception of the movie, i missed the beginning of the movie so i didn't watched how horrible Rose treated Barry because of his look but i realized how she got emotional when she met him with a girl at the park.

I like the movie, i didn't get the feeling you get, and i didn't think the movie used appearance as taking control but used appearance as a way of telling it is the least important thing in relationships. I think the title of the movie the mirror has two faces refers to there are two types of people in the world who are shallow people and profound people, and the plot of the movie with characters and their psychology is written for conveying that

reply

[–] rondine 16 years ago

Thank you for such a well thought-out reply. It's wonderful to come here & exchange ideas with other fans of movies.

I TOO liked the movie- I don't know if you saw my original post or any of the subsquent posts- I am not saying I don't like this movie- I am saying that there are parts that piss me off.

I am aware of the many different ways one could construe the meaning of the title. My "play" on words when I said the movie had 2 faces is my point that even having Rose do a physical make-over at all detracts from the whole idea that looks aren't what really count in the end.

To dismiss looks entirely though, is unrealistic. A person will not want to be physcially intimate with someone that repulses them. There has to be a modicum of attraction that is visual- it is what draws every species together. It's what usually makes the male bird the most flamboyant even though his colorings may be dangerous. (yes, I write for Field & Stream - just kidding!)

Now for the speedy conventions of a movie, they made it seem like after she saw her childhood picture, she was "all better" but I can tell you as one that has struggled all her life with self-esteem, it takes a hell of a lot more than just a picture and a lot more time.

You say changing her appearance had nothing to do with empowering her. Then I say, why change her appearance at ALL? what does that have to do with the story of looks being the more shallow way to judge a person?
Don't tell me when Gregory came back & she was all "dolled" up & slimmed-down that she didn't feel power in that situation where he didn't know what to do with this "new" physcial version of Rose? She knew she was in power and that's why she said the trite line from the beginning of the movie, "what for?" when he asked to call her.
When she was working out at the gym and they had that cheesy music playing in the score while she looked herself in the eye in the mirror while she pumped her iron... okay? what WAS that message if it wasn't the, "I'm going to lose weight and show them all!" message?

My mirror has 2 faces: my personality, intellect and compassion are freakin' gorgeous. My face is pretty, but I'm not a head-turner and I've been overweight for most of my adult life. Want to ask ME how hard it is to get a guy to get past the outside? I know all about the mirror.

reply

[–] ozlembal 16 years ago

Thanks for your reply

"after she saw her childhood picture, she was "all better" but I can tell you as one that has struggled all her life with self-esteem, it takes a hell of a lot more than just a picture and a lot more time."

I agree on that but it is just a movie, and wouldn't it be great if that would have been the case although it is not in reality. Although i don't remember much about the movie now, i remember that her mom imply that she hasn't been happy at all when Rose asked her mom what it feels like being beatiful, and Rose thought her mom has been totally happy and her sister too because they are the beauty queens of their family but Rose understood that from her sister's divorce, and her mom, physical beauty is not everything.

"You say changing her appearance had nothing to do with empowering her. Then I say, why change her appearance at ALL?"

I perceived as she changed her appearance to see what reactions she would get, more importantly if she would be happier. If happiness is considered as empowerment then yes otherwise no but on the other hand i can't deny glamourous look is used as a way of empowerment like maybe Rose thought it worked on Bronson but weirdly it is kind of he was interested in Rose even before Rose changed her appearence which kind of proves men's brain is limited to sex. But empowerment based on look doesn't always work even though it works at first sight, it'll eventually lose its first impact as personality reveals. There is an old saying, people are met by their look, they're send off by their personality.

"Don't tell me when Gregory came back & she was all "dolled" up & slimmed-down that she didn't feel power in that situation where he didn't know what to do with this "new" physcial version of Rose?"

She must feel power when Gregory came back assuming the situation as Gregory didn't know what to do with this new physical version of Rose, she was so sure about that even she didn't let him talk about how he feels about her new look, and didn't try to understand what he tried to tell her. All Gregory like about Rose was her personality, and their comunication, in that sense Gregory was an extraordinary character who doesn't fit into stereotype.

Rose character was lack of self esteem, and experimenting on looks. The reason the things which pissed you off didn't pissed me off is i perceived them as stereotypes, and the way she took them granted just like most people did until she figured out not each single person fits into stereotypes, as a result she got over her self esteem problems, and i think those stereotypes are in the plot for the sake of conveying right message in the end, moreover the reason portraying main character Rose as stereotypical is for increasing the affect of the message.

"Want to ask ME how hard it is to get a guy to get past the outside?"

I bet it is but be aware of not each single person is stereotypical, and there are many profound people out there, it is just you haven't met any of them yet, and remember even those stereotypical people are always to be a potential of profound people who haven't grown up yet, maybe you're going to make someone discover his profound personality

reply

[–] rondine 16 years ago

You are obviously a very sweet person... and I thank you for your detailed reply.

I'll start at the end & work my way up.

I have met profound people- just not profound men who don't overemphasize the exterior of a woman. As for shallow people being potentially profound people who haven't grown up & just need someone like me to help them....uh, no. I know I was born "old" and from the time I was five I was nicknamed the little "philosopher" in my house. If you are shallow, you generally remain that way. Also, it is FOLLY to think we can change other people in that way. One can be an example, but that is all. The world is full of battered, abused, downtrodden women who THINK they can "change him with love." Most people can't even change themselves, what conceit is it that we think we can change others?

As for stereotypes, they are there for a reason. Do I like them? no. I know this as well as anyone, I don't want to be judged on a stereotype (all women ... or all overweight people...all white people, etc...) I want to be judged on who I really am. I could clearly see the stereotypes presented in the movie. What made me mad was the way they used them to artifically move the plot along.

As for Rose's appearance- I never considered it her own personal experiment. That's definitely a new way of looking at it.

As for thinking you're beautiful- it is difficult in this world. There is so much marketing and messages out there that there is one kind of beautiful (example: Carrie Prejean- personally, I think she looks PLASTIC and unattractive- not to mention she became even MORE unattractive when she opened her intolerant mouth) but in REALITY, there are MANY kinds of beauty. Rose was trapped into thinking what many of us do, if we don't conform to Barbie (aka: Carrie Prejean) looks, then we aren't really pretty or attractive to men.
In the movie "Now, Voyager" Bette Davis' character talks about how beauty does come from within. For the most part, she is correct. Only problem now is how to get men to stop thinking ONLY with their small head. ;)

reply

[–] ozlembal 16 years ago

"As for shallow people being potentially profound people who haven't grown up & just need someone like me to help them....uh, no. I know I was born "old" and from the time I was five I was nicknamed the little "philosopher" in my house. If you are shallow, you generally remain that way. Also, it is FOLLY to think we can change other people in that way. One can be an example, but that is all."

You aren't able to change others unless they're willing to change themselves, and willing to reveal their profound side rather than their sheeple side. That's the reason why i said "discover" instead of "change", you can only make them discover either by your attitude or by your conversations.

"As for thinking you're beautiful- it is difficult in this world."

It's sad but true especially for people who have self-esteem problems, and people who follow herd behaviour thus lack of questioning, researching, pondering, and trying to figure out

reply

[–] Mikurtis 15 years ago

The movie is loosely based on an old French film where a man marries a homely woman and feels secure with her. After he has a car accident, the doctor offers to give the wife a nose job. The husband is against it. So, the wife goes on a "trip" to see her "mother" or something and has the nose job... and a makeover. She looks stunning. The husband now feels very insecure in his mrriage because other men start to notice his wife. So, in a way, the makeover HAD to be part of the story here.

reply

[–] rondine 15 years ago

Well all I have to say to that is it's BS!

... nothing HAD to be a part of the story here- we all know what it's like when another medium or movie is transferred to the big screen or translated. Liberties are taken all over the place. Heck- the story you just related from the French film doesn't even resemble this movie!

The fact that a makeover was in the original movie doesn't really excuse the use of it in this movie especially when the story line isn't about a guy that gets in a car accident & then has his homely wife made over- this is about a good looking guy who marries what some might call a homely woman in an experiment about marriage without love! It's almost a completely different story!

I'm still :( about the makeover! <grin>

reply

[–] mmitsos-1 16 years ago

rondine...I get your point completely. I agree...I love Streisand's singing voice, but in films, it's always "about her". Yes, she directed this one, but apparently the writer of the book said she/the screenwriter of the film missed the whole point of the book. I think she is trying get it "both ways", by showing herself transform into a bombshell/someone sexier/prettier/whatever. I think, without having read the book at all, that "the mirror has two faces" probably refers to the simple fact that we see ourselves one way, and others see ourselves another way. Streisand, however, changed it a bit and threw a line in the film, right after she "reveals" her new self to Bridges' character, something to the effect of "if looks don't matter, then what's wrong with the way I look now? It shouldn't matter what I look like to you now...it never did before, and it shouldn't now". And I think in this scene, she also added that his theory of looking for a relationship with no physical attraction sucks.

It's been ages since I've seen this film, but I do remember her scene in which she says this...words to the effect, and I remember taking it as Streisand showing her vast insecurity, still to this day, of her looks. Don't get me wrong..I like her, and twenty-five years I may have never been able to admit this..because I used to be a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE Streisand fan...my nickname throughout college was BABS in fact, because I sang all the time (a bit like her, in fact, in addition to jazz), and really loved her. However, she clearly has some insecurities about her looks which, I think, really inhibit her acting. In the scene in The Way We Were, after she had just broken up with Hubble Gardner (Redford), and she's wearing her pink terry cloth robe, and crying, she calls him, because "he's the best friend she's ever had..isn't that dumb?" (her quote to him on the phone). In talking to him on the phone, in that scene, Sidney Pollack purportedly told her to remove her hand from her face...because it was an Oscar-worthy scene, but no one saw the pain in her face (and the tears, and probably the swollen red eyes and nose, from crying) because she was covering them up with her hands. That's just a small example of what I mean by allowing her (what I think is) insecurity about her looks hamper her talent. This isn't unheard of...but there are also other actresses, most of the really great ones, no matter how imperfect-looking they may be, are not concerned with where the camera is, which of their profiles is being shot (Streisand, for instance, almost always insists on her left profile being shot, rather than her right one)...none of that. And you can't be...it COMPLETELY inhibits one as an actor...I can only imagine. You need to concentrate fully on the character and the story, and not where the hell a camera or lights are.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I liked "The Mirror Has Two Faces", but I definitely had a problem with Streisand opting for her character to do a makeover. It would have been more interesting if she stayed just as she did, and Bridges' character actually fell fully in love with her (emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, AND physically) without her having had the makeover. There are so many couples who say that they couldn't stand each other at first meeting, maybe didn't find each other very attractive at first at all...but all that changed as they began to learn more about each other. But,I guess Streisand wanted to take the other route.

reply

[–] rondine 16 years ago

AH! mmitsos-1 finally someone who really got what I meant! :)

I love Barbra Streisand too- and have many of her movies at home. I agree with you about how she tends to make the movies about her and even trying to portray a "sexy" version of herself on screen. Case in point is "Prince of Tides." I HAVE read that book and her movie version puts way too much emphasis on the affair with Wingo (Nolte) and it becomes this self-indulgent part of the film and really drags it out far too long. She directed that so I'm gonna blame her. ;)

I think she probably does have her own issues of self-esteem. She's a hell of an artist, actress and human being- who cares if she's celluloid perfection? In the movie "Nuts" her director's comments are freakin' fabulous. I've rarely heard such candid and intuitive discussion on the subject the movie deals with. I was VERY impressed.

I also agree about your idea on the title. We all have a way we see ourselves and the way other's see us. I also really think a normal, natural progression of the story had she NOT had the makeover would've been for Gregory to fall in love with her. After all, there's that scene in the restaurant where she drops some dressing on her dress (ha ha) and he gets that dizzy feeling looking across the table at her. The night she tried to "seduce" him (before the "makeover") he was definitely into it. Given the natural course of time, I think it would've happened even w/out the makeover.

Thanks for the post, I feel so understood now! LOL!

reply

[–] caks1813 15 years ago

Okay, I just watched this movie again tonight for probably the 50th time, and my mom and I had a big discussion about the development of the plot. And now, after reading everyone's posts on the subject, I feel I must toss my two cents into the ring.

First of all, I think the whole idea of the romantic fairy tale being thrown at us from Hollywood is completely accurate and accentuated (on purpose) in this movie. Rose's monologue in her class lays the groundwork for the whole premise of this story -- the idea that love is worth the effort and pain and heartache and time because it's a marvelous, albeit chaotic, passionate endeavor! Her insinuation that fiction has dictated our dreams and held our marriage standards at an impossibly high bar is dead-on accurate, which I believe leads to many of these "unhappy marriages" and its subsequent 50% divorce rate. We've built up this fantasy about love without actually understanding what love is. We focus on the passion and romance without grasping the depth and intimacy of true, self-sacrificing love. But a marriage is a marriage of the two worlds -- the passionate romance and the intimacy of shared hearts.

I will agree that Hollywood relies too much on these "transformation" scenes that seemingly allow for the "new" hero/heroine to discover oneself and find true happiness now that they've become this magical new person. I don't think this is what happened here. The "transformation" sequence and subsequent appearance of being the "new Rose" is itself a mirage. Rose didn't become someone else; she found herself -- the little girl in the picture, the one her father cherished and valued. What the movie refers to as the "old Rose" wasn't really who she was at all, but instead who she had "settled on" being. The movie places a lot of emphasis on settling, as I believe someone else in this thread mentioned. Rose had settled that she wasn't attractive, and then settled for this man she loved, but who never really saw her.

Finding the true Rose was what that sequence was about -- not for Gregory or her mother or anyone else. She found Rose for her. She had to fight the voices that would remind her of the nasty things she believed about herself (her ugliness, her heaviness, etc.), but when she looked in the mirror she was never satisfied. She didn't like herself. When she learned not to depend on food for comfort or someone telling her how to view herself ("the no-frills girl"), she grew in confidence and grew into herself.

I know it seems shallow, but perhaps that is the reflection of the two dimensional mirror looking back at us on this subject. What we see actually has no depth. It's what's looking back that truly has the depth and dimension. The mirror itself is flat and shallow and unresponsive. The person staring back at us has depth and perspective and emotional realities.

I think this whole movie actually follows that perspective -- there is the obvious and often shallow side to everything, but you have to look further to understand what's really going on underneath it all. You can think that you get something just by what it appears to be, but the mirror never shows you what's going on in your head or your heart. For Gregory, love was only when it fit his equation, but he fought his heart at every turn. He fell backwards into love because he didn't know love until he was so deep in it that it felt as natural as breathing. He was fascinated by this image in front of him the whole time, but he never saw her heart -- partly because she never felt like she could show it or trust it with him. And when she did, he got scared because it didn't fit his perfect picture of what he wanted to see.

Love isn't about first impressions; it's about taking the time to go further and getting lost trying to find your way around someone's heart. Neither one of our main characters here brought their whole selves into the relationship. A marriage isn't meant for completing each other, but instead for building a bond of wholeness right from the start, not just a contract or a "piece of paper". And you can't bring 100% of you into your relationship if you don't know 100% of yourself.

I also want to point out something no one has mentioned. What exactly is wrong with her taking care of herself and wanting to look nice? I know that when I dress up a bit, slap on some lip gloss, and parade around in my new suede black heels, I feel marvelous and confident. Did I put them on for a guy? Maybe. Did I put them on to impress a new client? Perhaps. But what exactly is wrong with any of that? I don't wear nice things or take care of myself for anyone but me. Why can't the same be said about Rose? She decided to color her hair and drop a few pounds. So what? I need to do the same thing before the end of the summer. Does this mean that I'm not who I am? At the end of the summer, will you say the same for me?

You said yourself that attractiveness is important, so what was wrong with Rose wanting to be beautiful for her husband? I know I want to be beautiful for mine (when I get one, one of these days!). And honestly, I want him to think that I am the most beautiful woman in the world, whether I'm in sweats or an LBD. And I want him to appreciate the effort that goes into the LBD occasions!

Also, I do want to say that I understand about the concept of men not seeing past the appearance. I have been both heavy and thin in my days. It was much easier to get them to notice me when I was thinner, but the ones that are truly worth the effort notice me no matter what size my jeans are. You know what, there are a ton of jerks out there, but there are some pretty great guys. Most of the ones I know are married now to my friends, but there's more of them out there! I hope you find a guy who exceeds your expectations as much as your exceed his.

Being pretty isn't all it's cracked up to be, but neither is being invisible. Honestly, they both take a lot of work to maintain. I think being yourself is the most attractive you can possibly be.

reply

[–] rondine 15 years ago

What a pleasure to read such a well thought-out post! :)

I would agree that people's Hollywood-expectations have attributed to the high divorce rate and that people's idea that love has to be this passion that makes your stomach flip every moment is not only unrealistic, but unhealthy. I can tell you this though, even after almost 10 years, my heart still beat a bit faster whenever I saw my ex- just the sight of him made me happier. Passion and real love can co-exist, but the idea that it's only one or the other kills some perfectly good marriages.

As for saying there's anything wrong with Rose wanting to look nice- I *never* said that (if you re-read my posts) I never even implied that it's wrong to take care of yourself or want to look nice.
However, in a movie that proclaims that true love notices what's on the inside more than the outside, it just seems hypocritical to me that they would have such a long sequence dedicated to her physical transformation (part of me thinks this is Barbra's own "ugly-duckling" syndrome).

You said that "perhaps" you do some of the dressing up for a new client or a guy - nothing's wrong with that either- but then you say in the very next sentence, "I don't wear nice things or take care of myself for anyone but me."
So even this seems not totally true. In fact, I would suggest it's just human nature to want to look pleasing to others as well as ourselves. I think it's not totally true to say it's just for ourselves- it never is.
But that said, what you look like really has nothing to do with who YOU are.
If I lost a leg tomorrow, I'd still be me. If I lost 30lbs tomorrow, I'd still be me. If I got Lasix and braces and all the makeover accoutrements possible to make myself look as much like the "Madison Avenue" version of myself- I'd still be ME. As Leo Buscaglia once said, this body is just my vehicle- it's nice to have a nice vehicle- but that's all it is.

reply

[–] szonyapierovna 14 years ago

It was such a pleasure to read your discussion! I myself was thinking about the mixed message problem originally suggested by rondine. Thanks for your bright ideas, these really enriched my thoughts! I never, for example, thought of the "new" Rose as her real self, as she found herself without any settling for less - but, as I think about it, it can be really a good approach!

However, I found for myself some other answers. Do you remember the scene when Rose and Claire are sitting at a bar and Claire, obviously completely merged in jealousy, tells Rose what "consequences" her makeover will have on her everyday life? She tells that she will always need an extra hour in front of the mirror, and that she will never be free from scanning the room she enters which woman look better than her, etcetera... You exactly know here that Claire is talking about herself and you also know that these things she said will never have any particular effect on Rose.
Because in spite of the radical change in her appearance, she has that "plus" that her sister lacks (or she just never tried to explore it), that plus that will make sure she can never turn to be that kind of unfortunate, beautiful-but-empty/unhappy woman Claire describes.

That makes the difference between them. However, why Rose still needed the makeover, or I'd rather say, why the plot needed it, I think it's because of contrasting. You can see the value of a certain thing, person, act or anything in contrast to another one. That’s a very much humanlike thing I guess, that’s how we are. So. I think, at this point of the story (just before the makeover), it wasn’t enough anymore that Rose is contrasted to other characters – the shallow ones as someone called. Her character needed to have a contrast in herself alone.
I would call it a „yes, I can do it, and I could any time – but I just don’t need it” feeling. Sometimes it is not enough to know something in theory, you have to try it. It’s like black and white and night and day: each and every thing in this world has two sides (yes, two faces :-)) and it works only well if the sides are in harmony. Is it clear somehow? I’m trying though I cannot express myself very sophisticatedly in English.

I am too a very intellectual kind of person and I understand Rose and agree with her radical act completely: if you are too much on „one side” of the scale, you really really have to try the other side, to explore your hidden but not less true faces, just for the sake of harmony, just for the knowledge that you can do it any time you want. And it’s only after that that you can say you don’t need it for happiness. Or… you realize that it enriched you instead of diminishing you and in spite of all your preconceptions!

That’s my own experience and not the only truth of course. It was funny and exciting by the way to read how everyone, conciously or unconciously, deduced the meaning of a character or a scene from her/his own life experiences.
I am really fond of new thoughts so thanks again.

reply

[–] rondine 14 years ago

Dear szonyapierovna,

First, you express yourself VERY well. I am bilingual and know how hard it is to translate your more sophisticated sentiments into another language!

And I think the last part of your post is very insightful. People DO bring to it whatever their own life experiences have revealved to them.

I also like what you said about exploring your own hidden "faces" that are a part of you and just as valid as they one you show each day. (It makes me think of that old Star Trek episode where Kirk gets split into good & evil and realizes that he truly needs both side to be a complete person.)

The part you mentioned about her & Claire is true I think because it's what he referred to in the movie "Shallow Hal" as the ugly duckling syndrome. If you have to develop a personality and compassion first (for whatever reason) you will retain that even if by some miracle transformation you change outwardly.

Great discussion! Thank you to everyone who so politely and eruditely posted their views. That is part of what makes imdb.com one of my favorite websites!!! :)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] strugglesthebear 14 years ago

I think Streisand herself can be pretty schizophrenic in this area. She wants to be loved for who she is, but often pushes forth a glamorous, overmade version of herself that nobody else really finds that appealing outside of the characters in her films.

Also I agree with the comments about the hypocrisy of Rose wanting to be loved for the person that she is, yet being fixated on men's looks.

reply

[–] vinidici 13 years ago

OP: I saw this in the theater when it was first released. It wasn't really my cuppa tea, for much the same misgivings as you've described. Did like Lauren Bacall in this, though...

Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

reply

[–] rondine 13 years ago

Thanks for chiming in... I wish that it had been different because to me it was so close to being really fabulous. Of course, if it had been different, it would be a different movie and I'm never one for alteration/censorship of any sort.

reply

[–] stuffic 13 years ago

Love this thread.

I think the makeover was about Rose just wanting to FEEL desirable and loveable for the first time in her life (particularly after Gregory's rejection). Having grown up with a more attractive mother and sister who obviously thought looks were important, Rose probably never even realized she had the potential to BE desirable. As a result, she settled for a life of: "OK, I'm not pretty, so the men I want don't want me, so I'll never have a man who loves me the way my father loved my mother, so men will never look at me the way they've looked at Claire, so that passionate relationship I've dreamed about is just a fantasy..."

So when Mom showed her the baby photo, she realized it was POSSIBLE for her to be a desirable woman in every sense. I think she did it because she loved Gregory, and she interpreted becoming attractive to being her ticket to that kind of relationship she spoke of in class (and even if it wasn't with Gregory, perhaps someday it could be with someone else.)

So yeah, I agree with the OP that the movie does have two faces, and that it does send a mixed message that even though the outward appearance isn't what's important, apparently it's important enough since it affects how we see ourselves (e.g. Rose became more confident, and seemed to feel more worthy of real love once she saw herself as pretty.)

Would Rose have had that revelation (that she shouldn't have settled for Gregory's arranged marriage) if not for her physical transformation? It's too bad she didn't feel loveable as the "old" Rose, and I think that's what rondine is talking about. Why did she have to look good on the outside to feel good on the inside? Society has got us screwed up in that way!!

I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

reply

[–] rondine 13 years ago

I love imdb!!! It's great to have a thread like this where everyone can respectfully share opinions about movies that lead us all into thinking about the movies we love AND to the almost lost art of discussion (nowadays so many people argue instead of discuss.)

I do understand Rose wanting to feel desirable and wanted. On an everyday basis that's why I keep putting on my makeup, wearing my contacts and trying to dress as flatteringly as possible (which makes me think of that part in Arthur when Liza Minnelli talks about keepin' on keeping on.)
We all feel better about ourselves when we look the part. That said, I think our society IS screwed up because real beauty comes from who we are- not what we look like. People who look good are merely winners in the genetic lottery and that is nothing to take ownership over. Being a decent human being and treating others with love in compassion is something that is not an accident of genetics, but a choice.
I choose to act with love and as we all know, that comes in many different packages. I would've liked this movie to stay true to that idea rather than have the makeover.
That said... I still love this movie for so many reasons. :)

reply

[–] MyNameIswha 13 years ago

i think only women who have felt like rose will ever understand rose's transformation. i have been over weight most of my life. i have struggled with self esteem issues, even at 27 years old. even after gaining and losing 100 lbs over and over i still dont feel complete love and acceptance for myself.

i felt rose went through the transformation because after he said he chose her because there was no way he could ever feel attracted to her. she wanted to feel good when she looked in the mirror. she got lucky and was able to realize after her transformation that looks arent everything, and they fade over time and was finally able to accept herself. whether or not she stayed thin. she even said she might gain the weight back.

so to me the weight loss was necessary for this movie. i really hope one day i can learn to accept myself as rose accepted herself. then again Rose's normally dont get the hot professor types....

reply

[–] rondine 13 years ago

But I *have* felt like Rose, my sweet terestrife. ;)
I too am overweight and have been since I was 16. I come from an overweight family full of dysfunction and issues and have used food as my exclusive "drug" of choice (I don't smoke, drink or do any actual drugs).

The thing I think people sometimes don't realize is that *every* one struggles with self esteem- from most "beautiful" (by society's standards) and the most intelligent. I think that the true key to accepting oneself is being happy with whatever you are and realizing your precious uniqueness in the scheme of things. As for our society's messed up messages that skinny people are the desirable ones, this isn't true or even right. I still wish that people would look past my exterior to see what's inside- when they don't, they lose. When they do, my weight becomes a non-factor.

I myself hope for you happiness and acceptance no matter your weight - and I am so grateful that you posted. You may have given courage to someone by your example. I think that you must be a wonderful person! :)

reply

[–] MyNameIswha 13 years ago

thats for the kind reply. i dont always see usually see myself in a positive way. even the times i would lose weight, i would see see the stretch my marks and how awful my stomach looks. lol

its especially tough not being able to find a partner. i want to find someone and to some day have kids. i dont know if guys dont notice me because they notice i have problems with myself, or maybe i really am as ugly as i feel sometimes.

its hard when i see happy couples, when i see my sister and 3 brothers all married with kids. its especially tough when i carry my nieces and nephews. im always the aunt and never the mother. and somehow i feel like its always going to be that way.

anyway, thanks for the kind response, it was nice to read.

reply

[–] rondine 13 years ago

I really DO know how you feel. I am divorced and this year will be 12 years since I got divorced. I often wonder, "what's wrong with me?" because I too see "happy" couples and wonder why not me.

I think part of the answer could lie in the fact that you DO value yourself. I know if I wanted to settle, I could probably find a guy pretty quickly. However, I do want someone that is smart, kind and understands me... and that last part may be a tall order, lol!

The couples you see may in fact, be happy- or they may be settling, or they may be lucky. In a world full of people, I think finding anyone that is special is remarkable.

You know, another great movie is "Now, Voyager" with Bette Davis (and there's a transformation in it too.) There's a part in there where she is talking to this little girl (who is still inside us ALL) and the little girl says she is ugly & nobody likes her. Bette's character, Charlotte Vale says to her, "whoever wants that kind of beauty? There's another kind that you can have that comes from within you, because you are a good person." And while that sounds a little simple, it is essentially true because... what is essential is invisible to the eye. :)
I know men are basically visual creatures that lust with their eyes first and yearn with their mind later, but it is disheartening at times when I know that despite my size, I am positive that I could make some guy supremely happy.

I would like to exchange emails--- hope to hear from you. I'm a real person, not a weirdo, just think it would be nice to exchange thoughts from time to time. I can tell you this- you will get positive feedback from me 'cuz that's how I roll! :) :)
[email protected]
~ Susan

reply

[–] Astrid2266 12 years ago

^^^I don't get it. In "Now Voyager", doesn't she also dramatically change her appearance and how is that any different than this movie?

I think in TMHTF, it was necessary for her to go through a physical transformation because it was part of her own issues with her appearance. It's like it was something she needed to experience to work out her own perceptions on the value of appearance. Also, I think they needed to do that because of her attraction to Alex being another thing she needed to work out and because he was a shallow kind of person who, most likely, wouldn't have pursued her unless she did change her appearance the way she did. So all of that was pertinent to the movement of the plot.

My feelings about appearance are that it is a relative matter. There are many shades of gray on the scale of appearance as there are many shades of gray on the level of depth and substance a person has and no matter what a person looks like. Ugly to beautiful, you cannot know how intelligent, deep or meaningful a person is no matter what they look like. You can only find out by getting to know that person. I've met people who were not attractive who were shallow and people who were beautiful who have much depth. It bothers me in this movie that Clair is depicted in the stereotypical beautiful-woman-with-no-depth way when there are plenty of physically beautiful women who have much depth and struggle with the misconception society puts on them that they must be shallow and not very intelligent because of how they look. I also don't like how they do that with Alex too. It's almost like they are saying that good looking people all lack depth. I suppose though that they needed those kinds of characters to contrast BS's character.

I tend to care about my appearance but not to an extreme degree. I wear makeup but not too much. I wear clothes that are clean and more comfortable than fashion conscious. I'll go for the elastic waisteband every time. I can see why some women fight to be "authentic" but do not understand women who take it to the nth degree. I've known some women who just refuse to do anything to boost their appearance to the point of not just no makeup but no bathing, shaving, brushing their teeth or combing their hair. While it's great to be that way from time to time to totally unwind and relax, I don't get what is so great about it on a regular basis. Often these women complain that their man shows no interest and then accuses him of being shallow when maybe he just wants to see her look nice once in a while. What's wrong with that? Imo, most men are not that demanding about appearance. They may ogle the beautiful woman but most of the time they want to be with the woman who is more on equal footing appearance-wise with them because it's more comfortable and comforting for them. I think most men are looking more for real love than they are often given credit for.

reply

[–] rondine 12 years ago

Thanks for a really thoughtful post- this is part of why I love imdb so much- the exchange of ideas! When people answer in a civil way and think about it, it is just so very cool!

TMHTF IS different than Now, Voyager (a movie I love & have seen many times) because in that movie Bette Davis didn't set out to get a makeover to get a man- she was transformed through the kindness of a therapist that was willing to treat her like a human being. Her goal was mental health, not tripping up a man that was shallow.

I agree that making all the "beautiful" people in the movie shallow, is shallow. I agree that people who "won" the genetic lottery and through luck are the traditional definition of beautiful are also fighting their own problems because of the stereotypes associated with beautiful people.

You mention that men want women to be on an equal footing appearance-wise with them - I point out that men don't exactly have to dress up a lot. Just as an observation, if men were women (lol) they wouldn't shave their legs, pits or use makeup with any regularity.
While men may be looking for love, I think in general they tend to be interested in looks first, youth second and brains last - it's part of the biology that has kept our race going for good or for bad.

reply

[–] bensmybaby 12 years ago

She thought she was not beautiul that is why she was not putting efort into her looks. SHE thought it would be pointless to do so. It was onl after her mother reminded her that she as beautiful that she realised that she could put effort into her looks and look beautiful. Bring out the beauty that was already there. Her mom's comment was the catalyst......n othing else. Her husband Beau fell in love with her physically b4 her make over . If u remember the scene in the restuarant he was fumbling over himself aaaaaaaaaaaand when she was dressed in the black negligee...he wanted her and was physically attracted to her then. He just thought havin sex with her would ruin their rship otherwise he was phsically wanting just not mentally.

if it were up to me I'd chose to speak like Humphrey Bogart, but....it isn't

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rondine 11 years ago

I respect the idea that she felt worthy of attention once she gained some confidence, but are you saying that people who don't "doll" themselves up every time they step out of the house, or people who are overweight are by default thinking themselves unworthy in some way?
Just curious what you think...

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rondine 11 years ago

You seem a little defensive and all I was asking for was a more in-depth explanation (which you provided).

I wasn't offended and I don't remember seeing any post from someone else in this thread that was either.

Here's some food for thought - there's a big difference between what I mentioned about getting "dolled up" before going out and being a "slob 24/7" so I'm not sure how you made that jump.

In my original post, I never suggested that feeling more confident because of a makeover was a bad thing. What I did suggest is that there's some hypocrisy in a story line that basically says it's not what's on the outside that matters most, but what's on the inside. Or to quote the Little Prince, "What is essential is invisible to the eye."

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rondine 11 years ago

You talk as if you need to explain the movie to me. But I am saying something contrary to what I think you are. That doesn't mean you're right or I'm wrong - it means we both took away something different from this movie.

What I am saying is that the movie itself states the premise at the very beginning that it shouldn't be what is on the outside that matters, but the inside.
Part of the whole experiment set up by Bridges' character is one in which it's not the exterior, but the interior that counts.

Perhaps you are not reading enough into the movie - what starts out looking like a movie that might challenge the commonly held idea that exterior beauty is all, ends up by showing if you transform yourself, you can have it all. Is finding love & self-fulfillment always tied up with how we look? I spend a lot of time volunteering and no one cares if I wear make up or have my hair done. It's about doing something kind. If most people would make THAT kind of change, the world would be more beautiful.

Perhaps I am missing the point of the story - perhaps it was just another Hollywood tale that says if you transform your exterior, more men will want you. (Brosnan's & Bridges' characters for instance...)
For me, I expected more.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]