Was Ray Immoral?


Had read Steve Martin's novella and saw the movie when it came out and just happened to watch it again yesterday...

Reading the messages on here I was most interested in whether there would be people here angry over the Ray character or even Steve Martin as a person (given that he wrote the story and played Ray Porter).

On average seems there's fewer angry people than supportive people who seems to accept it as more of a real-world/messed-up love story. I had to laugh at one point there are two messages in a row one titled "This is a GREAT MOVIE" the other saying "THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN".

Don't know if I can add much to the discussion except to say that for me the underlying question(s) that make the movie interesting are those of the morality of Ray's character in particular.

i.e. I think many people would say Ray was old enough to be this young woman's father he had no business buying her gifts and pursuing what he himself said was a purely casual/physical relationship.

For one thing - this is Steve Martin - "Father of the Bride" for pete sake!

For another - when he says to her they should keep their "options open" and tells his therapist he's told her this is a purely physical relationship - I think many people would say he's selfish/immoral/a villain at that point.

After all Mirabelle wasn't being presented as some "libertine chick" she was presented as a nice/sensitive young woman from Vermont.

I feel the thrust of the story - and the liberal minded "grown up-ness" of the story - is that by the end when Ray sums it up saying "that's life" we as an audience are supposed to see him not as a villain but just a flawed human being.

Now me I live in the bible belt, yet I think of myself as somewhat liberal, and I can't remember how the book came across but: in the movie I felt pretty much like Ray crossed the line and behaved badly. By the end I didn't accept "that's life" (Ray was just swept up in his feelings and couldn't help himself), I thought he took advantage of the girl - they didn't show him trying all that hard to say "I'm an independent free love guy baby we're just having us some fun!!" - they showed him being all sweet and gentle with her. Didn't that make him kind of manipulative?

People here were comparing this movie to "Lost in Translation" but it seems to me *that* movie stood out precisly because it didn't follow the standard formula - i.e. the two leads didn't wind up in bed together - it was more about connectedness/love less about sex.

Can't decide if I'm a liberal or conservative about this movie...




reply

Many times throughout the movie it is shown that Ray does care about Mirabelle more than an 'independent free love manipulative guy' ever would.

He stands by her when she's really down with depression (something a jerk would never do for a "booty call"), gives her thoughtful gifts and sincere compliments, and uses his money to make up for what he could not give her completely: himself.

Ray pursued the relationship not because he was stringing her along; we could see he could have other women, if he wanted (and hotter and more "liberal" ones, too: the kind any independent free love guy loves the most); but he did so because he did love her, as he clearly states in the end.

However, he was an aging sexagenarian, dating a woman even he considered to be too young for him, and probably thought keeping his distance would be best for both: it would be best for her, who would not get attached to a man whose time is running out, losing the best years of her life in the process (while she could be meeting a more suitable life partner instead); and it would be better for him, who would not get attached to a younger woman who could meet an attractive younger guy at any moment, and leave him too old to be hurt like that.

In a way, Ray sacrificed his own happiness to give her the chance of a more complete happiness than the one she could have with him (in his mind). When he said they should keep their options open, he really did also mean to keep her options open, even though she didn't think like that.

Granted, that was not entirely his decision to make, but he was a complex character, a sensitive man, and we didn't get a lot of backstory on him. He could have been dealt a severe blow earlier in life which could further compound to the way he kept her at bay.

The reason he was not entirely clear on that was likely because he wanted it to be ambiguous. He wanted her, but he thought he couldn't have her as he would like. So why let something with no future (in his eyes) become something serious? But still he wanted to be with her.

Also, he could use that ambiguity later if necessary as a consolation for himself as to why she left him (if she had). It was unclear enough that at first she interpreted it in one way (the way she wanted to), but she could easily take it the way he said he meant, if it ever came a moment for her to want to do that. In that case, he could always come back to that "speech" as a reminder that that's what he wanted in the first place, so he couldn't complain. It could be used to numb the pain.

One sign that this was the case is that he felt terribly guilty after sleeping with someone else, and had so much respect for her that he just told her about it because she deserved to know. Remember he said he thought it was gonna be OK. Why would he think so?

1. He didn't think he had real feelings for her.

2. He had told her that it wasn't supposed to be serious and they should keep their options open

i.e.: He thought he was being a "free love kind of guy" and being honest about it, so there was no harm. When her companion asks if he's seeing someone, he answers "Yes. ...no...".

If those conditions were true, then yes, it would have been ok. But it turned out not to be ok. He realized he had real feelings for her, and, most important, he didn't really feel so casual about their relationship at all.

But he was still an aging old man in love with a 20-something year old. The conditions that motivated his choices and behavior in the first place hadn't changed. So what could he do? Just try and make the best of their time together until a more appropriate opportunity would come along (for her, too), secretly hoping this day would never come.

So no, I don't think there's any possibility that Ray was just using her, and even less that he was "immoral". I really don't see interpretation as a "somewhat liberal" mindset at all. Sounds more like a very judgmental viewpoint stained by sexism and religious bigotry. But it doesn't just show in your comment. There are people here defending Ray but with similar viewpoints, but going in the opposite direction. Prejudice, sexism and religion run (and hurt) deep.

reply

Hey abossal thanks for your comments really in depth and thoughtful I really enjoyed reading them.

I read them a couple times actually - the first time somehow in my mind I assumed you were a woman and that I was getting a woman's point of view. Then I re-read your user name and thought "wait a minute - where did I get that impression - this may be a guy." (karen has replied after you maybe I read her name prior to reading your reply or something)

Why would it matter?

Well they say art imitates life right... In my case I'm a middle aged single guy and naturally I identified with Ray in the movie. My questions about Ray's morality were interesting because they're really my own questions about what's right and wrong for me. I would assume that most women would likewise identify with Mirabelle.

I think your defense of Ray saying he seemed sensitive and caring toward her, that he did seem to have true loving feelings for her, and broke it off as much for her benefit as his... I see where you're coming from you're right he wasn't some "wolf" who just used her and dumped her.

But when I said "I'm not sure if I'm a liberal or conservative about this movie", I could have added "and in life".

Though the truth is I'm not even sure whether other people's definitions of those terms would match mine or not.

For me, when I say "I think I'm somewhat liberal" I guess it's that I really believe in tolerance toward differences. With regard to this movie and how people behave in the realm of sex and love, I can accept that for some people casual sex is fine and they can have lots of partners and older men can sleep with younger women and vice versa. Woo woo it's all good!! :)

And that for other kinds of people, that's the last thing in the world they want - they want love and commitment and monogamy and they don't even *desire* casual sex.

Where I think I can claim to be somewhat liberal is that I'm not saying one way's "right" and one way's "wrong". I think different people are made differently and have different inclinations.

And it's with that view in mind that I do have sympathy for Ray in this movie and can see this movie as just about human nature, about love and attraction and how relationships don't always work out.

But where I do have at least some sympathy for a "conservative"/"religious"/whatever view of this movie would be where such people say things like: sure people have feelings and desires - everybody does (we're all "sinners at heart"! :) - but we we are all responsible for what we *do*.

And so I could/would understand someone with those views watching this movie and saying - wait a minute, Ray Porter *initiated* this whole thing! He sent her the fancy gloves, he wined and dined her and "wooed her" when he knew darned well right up front he was too old for her and if couldn't tell right at first (but let's face it he probably could) that she wasn't some "good time girl", then he could have told it soon enough that he could have broken it off a lot sooner than he did.

When he walked back to the room and she was lying there naked, he could have said "Sweetheart, put your clothes back on we both know this isn't going to work out you're young enough to be my daughter (haven't you seen my movie Father of the Bride? :)"

Certainly you could sympathize that Mirabelle's *parents* could feel this way. Politics/liberal/conservative talk aside, any parents of a young woman Mirabelle's age would be justified at being very skeptical of someone like Ray Porter (don't you think?).

Like I said what makes this movie interesting to me is that, as in life, I'm not sure who the good guys and bad guys really are. I can see both points of view. But insofar as Ray Porter initiated things, and he was the older more "mature" partner in this train wreck of a relationship, I can't shake the feeling that he stepped off the moral high ground and was the more culpable (the more selfish) of the two.

And I guess maybe that does reflect the belief that, in general, men want sex more, women want love more, and men know it and should be careful with women's hearts.

Is that sexist?

What exactly were you saying when you said "Prejudice, sexism and religion run (and hurt) deep." Like regarding this movie, where does prejudice come in? Ageism? And where does sexism come in? Religion? It's a fascinating line and it sounds good, but I didn't fully appreciate where you were coming from...









reply

I see your point, but I did not find Ray to be immoral because he was not cheating on his spouse. I don't find it immoral that an older man dates a younger woman. And frankly, Ray's "speech" to Mirabelle was filled with red flags that she might have caught, had she been paying attention. For example, when a man like that says "I'm not looking for anything permanent right now", he usually means "I just want a friend with benefits." Some may call it immoral or misleading, but the woman has to read between the lines. Ray may have made the assumption that Mirabelle understood, but she was doing her share of assuming too, as evidenced in her conversation with her friends.

Honestly, I found Ray to be more pitiful than immoral. It was sad to see someone who was so in denial and out of touch with their emotions. I think it was clear that Ray loved Mirabelle, but obviously he couldn't face this fact until after it was too late. However, at least he acknowledged it and apologized. I loved the fact that in spite of Ray's emotional shortcomings, he was still able to recognize and learn from his mistakes. It showed character on his part; something I did not see in Bob and Charlotte from "Lost In Translation."

Thus, I HATE it when people compare this movie to "LIT." They are not the same at all! Ray and Mirabelle are both single adults and there is nothing wrong with their relationship other than the major miscommunication between them. But Bob and Charlotte are both married, so their relationship is adulterous and immoral. While Ray and Mirabelle both grew from their experience, each becoming a better person in the end, Bob and Charlotte remained unchanged to the end: self-centered and unrepentant. They clearly had no remorse for what they'd done to their spouses, yet the movie glorified Bob and Charlotte as heroes, patting them on the back simply because they didn't take their affair to a physical level. BFD! They *still* cheated AND they didn't even have enough conscience to regret it. Frankly, I found them to be almost sociopathic in that regard. I certainly didn't find either of them likable.

To sum up, I think it's pretty clear that I preferred Shopgirl. LOL

reply

Hi Karen thanks for the reply really interesting to hear a woman's point of view.

I couldn't help but think/wonder about "gender differences" reading some of what you said in your reply. This is a topic that's fascinated me for a long time - some of what I've read comes from the point of view that men and women have different inclinations rooted in their biology - namely the fact that women invest a lot energy in bearing children whereas men - not so much. :)

Re:
>"For example, when a man like that says "I'm not looking for anything permanent right now", he usually means "I just want a friend with benefits." Some may call it immoral or misleading, but the woman has to read between the lines."

In general, it's easier to imagine men saying this to a woman than vice versa right. It's mainly women who have to "read between the lines" because it's men who are more interested in the "benefits" and not the "permanence". Agreed? In general?

I'm reminded of Rob Reiner speaking on the "Making Of" stuff on a DVD for "When Harry Met Sally". He talks about the Harry character being based on himself, on how lonely he was after getting divorced, and on gender differences in general. He observed (I'm paraphrasing from memory btw) something like: I would have liked to be in a loving sexual relationship, but just because I wasn't, that didn't mean I didn't want to have sex!

In this respect, are you saying Mirabelle was naive? I guess you are... But after all she was young, young people are expected to be naive, and that's one reason older people are not supposed to take advantage of young people, e.g. children. So I guess if we sympathize more with Ray Porter we say Mirabelle was old enough to know better, old enough to protect herself from being hurt. If we sympathize with Mirabelle we say Ray should have protected her more from being hurt.

Your comments about LIT make me want to go back and watch it btw - I haven't seen it in a long time... but your comments again remind me of this gender different stuff. I've read stuff saying "Women can more easily forgive sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity". And men - vice versa.

Again, as I wrote above, this is supposedly an outgrowth of the biological difference in "parental investment" of males versus females. They say this explains why a woman won't be happy if her husband cheats on her with a prostitute, but she's more likely to forgive (or at least feel less threatened by) that, than if he's been having an affair with a coworker that he professes having feelings for. Whereas men are more crazed at the thought of his wife actually having *sex* with another man.

For most men, I don't think the thought of their wive's having feelings for another man comes even close to "adultery". I think to most men, "adultery" by defintion means having *sex*.

And maybe this explains why your paragraph about LIT sounds insane to me. :)

Seriously I thought the whole point of LIT was these two lonely people, feeling isolated in a foreign country, having significant differences (most obviously their age), and yet finding this "connection". And as I said, for me what made LIT unique from other movies was that the "connection" was not overtly romantic and sexual, or else they were honorable enough (since as you said they were married) that they kept it from becoming sexual.

I thought that was the main point/theme/whatever of the movie!

What you said - that they "cheated" - sounds preposterous to me.

Are you from Mars? (or am I from Mars? And you're from Venus? I can never keep it straight :).

reply

Whether I find Ray immoral is actually a tough question. I don't think that Ray is immoral for the reasons that many people seem to think. I don't think that dating a much younger woman, who is in fact an adult, is immoral. I also don't think that wanting a sexual relationship without emotional committment is immoral as long as he is honest about it. I think that my problem with Ray is that he was conveniently "honest" with her after he charmed and romanced her, and after he got what he wanted and bed her. In the beginning he wooed her and acted as if he had real interest in her. They didn't sleep together on the first date, and he came across as if he appreciated her in more than just a physical way. He was very charming and seemed almost shy, and he pursued her in an almost old fashioned way. The morning after talk actually shocked me, as did his conversation with his therapist, because I didn't see that coming at all. I can understand how Mirabelle could easily misenterpret his comments, especially since their true meaning wasn't at all what she wanted to believe. It did take some major denial on her part to fall for him the way she did, but despite his openness after their sexual encounter, he had in fact layed the groundwork for an emotional seduction and I think he has some copeability in heartbreak. The naration after their break up also confirms that he consciously chose to keep himself emotionally distant from her, so his coldness is actually calculating. It is obvious that he knows that she cares more for him than he does for her, yet he continues to use her to aleve his loneliness. I don't know if I would technically consider this immoral, but it is definately selfish and opportunistic, not to mention unkind. He claims to have believed that she "understood", but a man of his age and intelligence had to know better. He just knew that by having the talk with her after their first night together that he had created a sort of loophole to allow himself out of feeling guilty. In the end, though, he did feel guilty because he knew that he had not really been honest with her in his actions, nor had he been honest with himself. He may not have been immoral, but I wouldn't say that he was a good guy either. I think he was flawed, as we all are. At the end of the film he realizes that because of his refusal to allow himself to care about her as deeply as he could have, they both suffered a loss.

reply

I agree with a lot of what you said.

Reading what you wrote, I was thinking that - painting it very broadly - maybe the theme of the movie could be summarized as being that *real*, lasting, relationships (as opposed to short term, physical ones) between a much older man and a much younger woman... probably aren't such a good idea. :)




reply

It surely puts the younger woman at a disadvantage, emotionally. I think it can work, if the older man is at a place where he's looking to settle down. I thought of it more as a statement about keeping ones eyes open to the truth, no matter how much one might want to believe the romantic possibilities. I was in a relationship with a much older man, and the roles were reversed. He was ready to settle down, and I wasn't. I ended the relationship early to avoid hurting him more than I had to. I think that's what Ray should've done as soon as he saw how much Mirabelle was starting to care for him.

I want to try some squeezle!

reply