MovieChat Forums > Walk on Water (2005) Discussion > The USA and the ham-fisted 'ending'

The USA and the ham-fisted 'ending'

posted 18 years ago by PhilipChandler
93 replies | jump to latest

I have lived in the US for the past two decades, and can honestly state that the US is one of the most homophobic, morally backwards, and obtuse nations in what we refer to as "Western civilization" -- furthermore, that nation is moving BACKWARDS as I write this.

For that reason -- and probably that reason alone -- the "ending" of the movie took the form of a ham-fisted, out of nowhere marriage between Eyal and Pia. Had the movie gone where it should have gone (in terms of authenticity with respect to the dynamics that unfolded between Axel and Eyal), audiences in the US would have shunned the movie or dismissed it out of hand (bear in mind that we are referring to a nation that cannot even tolerate the concept of "civil unions" between members of the same sex). The "ending" was tacked on for the sake of US audiences, to salvage this brilliant little movie from box-office failure in that nation. The "ending" was bereft of merit, and had only one redeeming feature -- the dream in which Eyal and Axel were once again together...

I am openly gay, and saw the relationship unfolding between Axel and Eyal very early in the movie. Eyal was jealous, confused, upset, and at a complete loss to understand his own feelings as he abandoned Pia at the gay bar -- he did not know or understand it, but he had formed a bond with Axel and saw Axel's behavior in the gay bar as a "betrayal" of that bond. Later, when Axel explained gay sex to Eyal, Axel deliberately and (in my opinion) carefully stated that he classified himself as neither a top nor a bottom -- something which I think he did so as to preempt any foreclosure of a future possible relationship between the two of them. His reference to Eyal and other "straight boys" was such a coy tease that I cannot understand how anybody could have missed this dead give-away! This was blatant flirtation!

The TRUE ending of the movie -- the scene in which Eyal is comforted and caressed by Axel -- speaks for itself. Both characters have undergone profound psychological transformation. Axel, for the first time, feels hatred for those who wish to harm him (the punks at the underpass). Eyal, for the first time, feels awe for life itself (and is hence unable to complete his mission). They know each other and love each other, and, for the first time, this can be acknowledged for what it is...

(I was reminded of a similar scene involving incredibly close bonding, in a movie named "Mysterious Skin," which ended on a similar note...)

It saddens me that this little gem of a movie had to be mangled so as to make it palatable to US tastes at the box-office. Pia's character undergoes no development whatsoever; she is merely part of the scenery (in terms of the dynamics between the characters).

This is a movie about seduction, in which the seducer does not, at first, even know if he wants the seduced...

PHILIP CHANDLER

[–] shs8r3 15 years ago

Though I agree that the end relationship between Eyal and Pia was completely out of place, I definitely didn't see Eyal and Axel's relationship as a romantic or sexual one. It seemed pretty established to me that Eyal was straight. I'm fairly certain a straight man and a gay man can have a deep friendship without the straight man being a repressed homosexual. Axel brought Eyal a different way of looking at the world. That's where their friendship was based.

But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'S***!, it's raining!'

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

I've just replied to another thread on the subject, so will be brief here.

Yes, there was a strong love expressed between Axel and Eyal, a love beyond the limitations of "accepted" heterosexual relationships. But to insist that there was sex is playing the same sort of game that many homophobes play, it over-emphasizing the sexual act as the only possible expression of love between two men.

Whether or not they "had sex", whether or not the film was "based" on a true story, whether or not Lior Ashkenazi has an gay affair, is all irrelevant. The argument only cheapens the real power and depth of the relationship between Eyal and Axel.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

he fact that the story is based on a true story, and that Lior Ashkenazi has himself had a gay affair, and that the director and his screenplay-writer husband have both said Eyal and Axel have an affair, are all factors that are COMPLETELY relevant.

That is just a wrong way to approach art. Writers, directors, actors, all have personal experiences, which can, and often do, work their way into their art. However, it's wrong to assume that any one experience need to direct the viewer to any particular interpretation of the work.

And again, you latching onto my use of the word "cheap". I didn't mean that in life it would have cheapened their relationship, which is not the way I view sex in general, and make no distinction in that matter between hetero homo sexuality. I DO feel that it would have cheapened the power of the image we see at the end, and the idea behind it, and would have been unnecessary.

My 12th graders saw the film in a series of several other films dealing with the Israeli family the past decade, with special stress on the Israeli male, a subject I dealt with at length on another thread for this film.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

why does it upset you that that love would have been expressed physically too?

Where did I give any impression that it upset me, in any way? I just thought that within the context of the film, and of the characters, it was either less likely, or at least irrelevant to the main issue.

I don't think that sex cheapens a relationship, I just thought that - again, within the context of the film - that it cheapened the more powerful ideas being presented. It might have taken the film into a coming-out fantasy, and lessened the impact of that scene, which was a good moment to end the plot-line.

When talking about Milk with my son, I mentioned that van Sant was too conservative in presenting the physical relationship between Harvey Milk and his lover. He replied that as a gay man he was more moved by the simple tender touching and hugging we see, adding that THAT is something mainstream film DOESN'T show in gay relationship.

While up to this point, the last words of your post, I see a good discussion, the idea of the filmmakers "chickening out" bothered me, as it denies the possibility that they chose this ending for artistic reasons.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

Let me try this from another angle.

I wrote a long time ago that if I was a major film director, I might want to do an erotic film, even if it would be called porn. Just to make a point about the legitimacy of presenting sexuality. I added that I might even prefer to do a gay film, since as a straight male, in directing a man and a woman I would identify with the male, and possibly show the woman from HIS point of view.

I can imagine similar thinking with Walk on Water. If we got to see a sex scene, however well done, at the end, there would be a risk that it would seem as from Axel's point of view, that is, of the filmmakers. It might too easily be read as a fantasy, even if not intended as such.

Isn't it possible that Eyal developed deep feelings for Axel, tenderness and caring, that Axel allowed him to (sorry if I sound like Dr. Phil) "get in touch" with his sensitivity, as a man, without sex? Mightn't Axel himself realize that Eyal was is a very difficult emotional state, and it might be best NOT to have sex, even if it was possible?

These are all possible readings, that may or may not be correct, but in discussing them I feel you must move away from the position that the ONLY reason not to have a sex scene concerns marketing and self-censorship.

As for the "Lior Ashkenazi had gay sex so he knows" argument, I'll recall a discussion I had recently on the North By Northwest board. Someone wrote that Eve and Roger had sex on the train, but the "production code" didn't allow Hitchcock to show it.

One of my arguments (apart from the fact that the production code was almost totally gone by 1959) was that it wasn't in Eve's character. She was manipulative and frigid, and simply wanted to hold Roger in the room, which she could do without actually having sex with him. This is an argument of character. Now, what if someone comes up with an interview with Cary Grant, who talks about how he would often have sex with women on the train? Is that a legitimate argument? Obviously not.

So here we go again. In the meantime, I'm off to see an early screening of Where the Wild Things Are, with my granddaughter.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] shs8r3 15 years ago

Ok....I'm not obtuse or "blind" as you said. I definitely picked up on the possible repressed homosexuality and gay references and that everyone has listed ... the shower scene, the anger at Pia's one night stand, Eyal's freak-out at the gay club, etc. Actually that's the reason why I clicked on this board.

The problem is that I didn't find them believable. I don't know that I can really explain why. There were times when I definitely thought it was headed in a romantic direction, but it never felt like a love story so much as a friend story to me. It wasn't that I didn't see what you saw, I just didn't FEEL any kind of chemistry between the characters.

For me it doesn't matter whether it's a gay or a straight love story...it matters that the actors and the director make it a credible love story. In this case I didn't see it that way.

As a side note, I did also think the ending was unnecessary and completely incongruous with the rest of the story for all the reasons everyone else has already listed.

But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'S***!, it's raining!'

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Korios 15 years ago

@ OP
You've got a good point that the ending was possibly not what we should have expected but it was not an unrealistic one.
I'm not sure whether the director & writer(both gay as I just found out) ended this story this way on commercial motives.
What I mean is that we are all essentially bisexual,bearing a latent gay or straight sexual side.
Which one of the two we develop is a matter of taste,choice,environment,or possibly even genes-OK,there are a few who develop fully both sides at the same time,but I'm not sure whether active bisexuality lasts for long.
Gay men still have straight men-friends right?
Perhaps Axel and Eyal were better suited as friends;Eyal's ignorance of homosexuality didn't necessarily mean that when he learnt about it he would crave for "awakening" his dormant gay side.He was no child,he was a married man edging 40 and he had opted for the straight side.Surely he had feelings for Axel,feelings beyond friendship maybe,but he may have not been ready or desired to be lovers with him.
On a subconscious level Eyal may have wanted him as a lover,hence the dream,but
he might not be able to live with it consciously.
Subconscious is sexless,timeless and tabooless.
On another level the dream at the end may represent his resentment against the Germans and his latent desire to forgive them so that he could emotionally liberate himself.
Also bear in mind that although he had stated that he would never have any children eventually he did have one-and with a German girl!
This baby could be viewed as a symbol for forgiveness,atonement,and of course...hope.
Btw I'm straight :)

[–] WhoCanThisBe 15 years ago

Good points, Klimt.

Surely he had feelings for Axel, feelings beyond friendship maybe, but he may have not been ready or desired to be lovers with him. On a subconscious level Eyal may have wanted him as a lover, hence the dream, but he might not be able to live with it consciously.

I think you and I are basically on the same page, although the director and his screenplay writer husband of many years have said that Eyal and Axel did indeed have a physical relationship, before Axel moved on, and Eyal married his sister.

The character of Eyal is based on a real Mossad agent the screenplay writer was told about, who had had a psychological meltdown before he had a sexual relationship with another man, and then married the man's sister and having a child by her. It was part of the process of his coming to grips with the feelings he had denied for so long.

BTW, I posted to this board for many years as "tomtrueman", but a recent troll war on another board resulted in a pack of spiteful thugs getting my five-year long account deleted, which means that every message I had ever posted anywhere was deleted.

I'll have to get back into it slowly -- so I'm glad to see that this board is still active, which will give me a chance to repeat some of my opinions that have been deleted.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhoCanThisBe 15 years ago

So now this psycho is going to stalk me over here? What a nutcase.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tomtkh 15 years ago

I have to agree with you Philip...I live in the U.S. and it is EXTREMELY homophobic, and in some parts of the U.S. VERY racist as well. At every single place I've ever worked I've had to listen to the most disgusting anti-gay jokes...including the "F" word. And these morons have no idea who they might be offending around them. So it doesn't surprise me they changed the ending for U.S. audiences!! So much for the United States and their BRAGGING of being a free country. And speaking of bragging, I've always hated the ARROGANT "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" chant. I feel embarrassed for us Americans every time I hear that.

[–] PhilipChandler 15 years ago

I lost a great deal of faith in the US in 2006, when I was fired from a high-paying position as a computer consultant when my manager found out that I was gay.

When President Obama was elected, I thought that the nation still stood a chance. However, I have since read utterly pig-ignorant attacks on the British National Health Service (NHS). I am presently caring for an elderly relative in the UK, and can vouch for the fact that the care that people receive at the hands of the NHS is BETTER than the care that most persons living in the US receive -- even when they have generous insurance and are covered extensively. President Obama has tried to extend guaranteed health insurance to everybody -- and is being pilloried in response to his efforts by a bunch of ignorant, obtuse hicks who don't know the first thing about the NHS and who yet see fit to criticize a system that has protected the health of UK citizens for almost 60 years! I hear your complaint about the arrogant "U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!" chant, uttered by people who don't know the first thing about the health insurance systems of other nations, and who REJECT guaranteed health insurance in the US merely because they perceive it to be "socialist" (horror of horrors! God save us from the wicked SOCIALISTS!!!).

I have lost my faith in the American people. They are homophobic, racist, and arrogant. They fail to live up to the grand ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and supposedly made operative by the US Constitution. I can see how the producers of "Walk on Water" tacked on the ending, in an attempt to prevent hicks in the red states from having "issues" with the movie...

How terribly sad. I was suckered into believing the ideal, and became a US citizen because I really believed that the US stood for something better than that which I had known, as an ex-South African citizen...

PHILIP CHANDLER

[–] tomtkh 15 years ago

Philip, it's too bad your job firing didn't happen in California. They have a gay discrimination law and you could have sued that company, most likely they would have settled, and you would deserved that.
Regarding the movie's ending, I finally did see it, and it had the ending of him living with a child...but at least he was sending the guy a very nice e-mail, and even said he "dreamt" of him, which was cool. Is this the ending you're referring to, the tacked-on ending?

[–] PhilipChandler 15 years ago

Tom -- yes, I believe that the ending in which Eyal married Pia and had a baby with her was “tacked on” in a ham-fisted manner for the sake of American audiences in the red states; I don't know whether or not you are gay, but assuming that you are not, here is why I have such problems with that ending.

During the movie, Eyal displayed absolutely no interest in Pia whatsoever – zero (although she was very obviously interested in him). As the movie progressed, Eyal became increasingly affectionate towards Axel, at first within what one could argue were the parameters of a normal heterosexual friendship. However, as the movie progressed, Eyal became visibly distraught and flat-out jealous; when Axel, Pia, and Rafik were dancing at the gay nightclub, and Eyal saw Axel really getting into Rafik, he left in a huff – believe me that when you are gay, you see these things – and he seemed completely at a loss to understand his own emotions. He could have danced with Pia, who was practically drooling over him – but he left in a state of visible agitation. When you are gay, you notice things that heterosexual men simply don’t see or understand – a look that is just slightly too intense, a touch that is slightly more intimate than it should be, and other indications of that nature. Eyal could not understand the emotions he we feeling – and he couldn’t attach the word “jealously” to those emotions, because that didn’t fit his worldview, and would have caused major cognitive dissonance…

As the movie progressed, the bond between the two men became more and more visible. When Eyal showed up in Germany outside the volunteer center where Axel worked, he looked like a love-sick puppy! He became more and more intimate with Axel – the scene involving the two of them at the gay bar, in which Eyal asked Axel what it felt like to have sex with another man, was so loaded with the subtle indications I refer to above as to amount to flat-out flirting, with Axel telling Eyal about something that they both knew, at an unspoken level, would eventually occur between the two of them. I am gay and I have several heterosexual friends – none of them have ever asked me such detailed questions about the mechanics of gay sex (other than on a few occasions when they have been horny and drunk, and have wanted me to do something about it!)…

Eyal became furious at the bazaar, venting his machismo and using Rafik as a scapegoat for the confusion and turmoil into which he had been plunged (this was mirrored in his machismo posturing in the presence of Menachem). As he sat alone in his apartment, listening to Bruce Springsteen singing “Tunnel of Love” after dropping Axel off at the airport, he was clearly torn between deeply conflicting emotions, dismissing the (very pretty) marksman instructor (who was clearly interested in him) in a very abrupt manner after she dropped off the last, unheard disc…

As Eyal fell deeper and deeper in love with Axel, he found his paramilitary mission increasingly distasteful and painful – and he was plagued by memories of the young Palestinian child’s face, with the tears flowing, blending into memories of the tear-stained face of his dead wife, Iris, who had told him in her sad suicide note that he “killed everything that came near him”. By the time he was in a position to “terminate” Axel’s grandfather, he found that the influence of his gentle friend Axel had made his military mission impossible for him to complete – notwithstanding the grotesque horrors for which the old Nazi had been responsible. He looked up and saw Axel staring at him, and wordlessly walked out of the room. Axel did what Eyal could not do, and then returned to his bedroom, to find Eyal crying on his bed. Eyal ended up being hugged and caressed by Axel, on Axel’s bed…

As if this were not enough – the director has stated in interviews, unambiguously and flat-out, that this movie was based on a true story, and in that true account, the Mossad agent fell in love with, and had a sexual and romantic relationship with, the brother upon whom Axel’s character had been based; he later married the sister…

You cannot get more authoritative an account of the truth than that!

I hope I have cleared this up…

PHILIP CHANDLER

[–] tomtkh 15 years ago

I didn't pay much attention to the movie because I was busy, but I will make it a point to re-watch it again. It looked really good...and if they did tack that ending on the end, that is just GROSS. I would like to see the original ending...also I did not know this was a true story. I did read that the lead actor has admitted publicly to be bisexual, which surprised me. He looks like a typical straight man to me, even though he is extremely good looking.
I'm not straight by the way.

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

Tom -- yes, I believe that the ending in which Eyal married Pia and had a baby with her was “tacked on” in a ham-fisted manner for the sake of American audiences in the red states...

Let me again state a position I've expressed before, that whatever you think about the ending, and its artistic integrity, it has nothing to do with the US market, for several reasons.

First of all, any Israeli film hoping to have success abroad, must make it on the European festival circuit. Even if there are hopes for an eventual US release, it will come after success in an important festival. Secondly, even if they DID think about an eventual US distribution, they would have planned release limited to the large cities, with cinema-sophisticated - and culturally open - audiences.

And, Tom, as I've said before in conversations with you, it has nothing to do with the "real" story. I've always seen the ending as an attempt to show a possible future Israeli society, that the Israeli male can give up his macho, homophobia, and racism, and bring a child into a world that might be a bit better than it was before.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] tomtkh 15 years ago

Well either way I'm grateful they at least portrayed Eyal as a sweet guy. After all they didn't show his wife at ALL in the version I saw, just him writing an e-mail to the gay dude. But I really liked the movie - a lot.

[–] lubin-freddy 14 years ago

I glad that this discussion is still going on, but I feel a need to reiterate a point.

I believe that the ending in which Eyal married Pia and had a baby with her was “tacked on” in a ham-fisted manner for the sake of American audiences in the red states...

I have no problem with any opinion about the ending itself, whether it works or not. But to think that the filmmakers would be thinking about the "red state" American audience is just silly. I doubt whether there was any marketing strategy for those areas. If anything, as I've stated before, they would have been thinking about the European film-festival circuit.

You know you should surrender
But you can't let it go...

[–] Superchellemarie 14 years ago

I felt that the ending was awkward, and felt tacked on; almost as an afterthought.
I disliked it for two reasons:

1. The pacing. For the entire movie up to that point, Eyals character is unfolding and metamorphosing at a slow and painful pace. Then all of a sudden, zip, it fast forwards into him having a wife, child, and a happy disposition. It evidenced such immense transformation in such an abrupt, brief manner. It was jarring.

2. Pia. Why would Pia be interested in him? The premise of all of their interactions for the entirety of the film is based on lies. In all of their interactions he vacillates between being gruff, and acting like a complete *beep* If I were her I might think, at best, that he was hot, but apart from that, he was dishonest, untrustworthy, completely lacking social grace, cold, insensitive...oh, and a cold-blooded killer. Pia seems like a reasonably sensible women so it doesn't make sense, based on what we've been able to see thus far in the movie, that Eyal would, in any way, be desirable as a mate and father for her children.

It can be deduced that Eyal went through an astronomical amount of transformation in the period represented by the film, and the interim period before the final scene. However, that period of transformation could have comprised a movie of its own (Walk on Water II ;).

WRT the possibility of Eyal and Axel hooking up...I can see why Eyal would fall in love with Axel, for sure, but why in the hell would Axel fall in love with Eyal? It's not like he's wanting for lovers or interested in a deep romantic connection. It's endearing to see Eyal learning from Axel, but, for the most part, Eyal is a dick.

[–] LusitanWanderer 14 years ago

totally subscribe to ur feelings!

all I had read is why would Eyal be interested in Pia and not in Axel but the real question is why would she (despite the sex appeal)??

the ending ruined the film to me... an open story would be perfect

youngsters dont make mistakes, they try new things n besides, brains r overrated!

[–] sonofindiandelta 14 years ago

I completely agree with your first sentence.

[–] velcronewsletter 14 years ago

I think the final scene should have been more open ended. perhaps with writing an email to axel, it should have finished there. i would have found it easier to understand if eyal liked pia at first and then transferred his affections over to axel. i don't think he should have ended up with pia and possibly even axel, staying on his own to clear his head would have been better perhaps. but i can still see eyal ending up with axel more than pia if he had to end up with someone
------------------------
'Little monkey down! LITTLE MONKEY DOWN!' (Julia Murney in Wicked)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 13 years ago

But this movie is not an exploration of human sexuality. It was an exploration of human capacity to build peace despite what happened decades ago.

Exactly.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

[–] wrathofachilles 13 years ago

This isn't an American movie, and it wasn't made for the U.S. market. Not everything in the world is about us.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mightythor47 12 years ago

To me it is clear that a main theme of the movie is the reconciliation of opposites. In my perception, pretty much all the the details in the movie and the artistic choices that inform it all line up on this axis. In the context of this interpretation, it is not only reasonable that the two men do not become lovers, it is in fact essential that they do not. They must remain opposites for their friendship to attain its full emotional impact. Sorry that your heterophobia prevented you from appreciating this point.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 11 years ago

Gays often talk about the heterosexuals thinking that it's "all about sex". This is exactly the point here. It's NOT about sex. It's about friendship, about human contact, about caring. Why should Eyal suddenly discover he's gay, and desire gay sex? Wouldn't that be a lesser point than the real human contact he was able to achieve with someone different than him, but human all the same? Wouldn't a coming out fantasy have cheapened this powerful point? I have nothing against coming out movies, especially having a son who came out, and was lucky enough to have an understanding family. Maybe in ANOTHER movie it would have been the right thing to do. But not in this one.

Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

[–] nycsean10014 10 years ago

Well,...I really didn't think that, having come upon this thread some six years after you began it, that you would still be writing here, and that I could offer a reply to your original comments. The internet......

While I do agree with your basic point that the sexual issue is a red herring in this film, I emphatically do not agree with many of your other subsidiary comments:

I do not believe at all that the ending was in any way altered to suit a supposedly conservative audience--in the US, or anywhere else. I think that other commenters have responded adequately enough to that issue, and I don't have to elaborate. Suffice it to say that the ending that you suggested would not at all, IMO, flow from the rest of the film. There is no hint in any part of the film that any sort of intimate relationship would be in the offing between Eyal and Axel. Sexual or not, even the final scene in the Himmelman villa seems strained. Eyal will not--at least, in this life--ever evolve into a suitable companion for Axel--whether sexually or even as an intimate friend. It is only their being brothers-in-law that keeps them in contact. Not saying that they hate each other; only that their personalities face each other across an emotional chasm: they are simply too different. Fox's tale requires this distance in order to create the fable he wants.

On the other hand, you can see the relationship between Eyal and Pia slowly developing: In the restaurant, he clearly expresses his surprise at how much more attractive Pia appears to him (because she has put on lipstick); anyway, that's how I saw the plot developing. Also--the romance and marriage with Pia gives Eyal the 'out' he needs, because the Mossad has decided that he's no longer suitable for the work he has excelled at.

Enough on that topic. What I really wanted to comment on was your views on the US and gay issues. I hope that, from the perspective of some years later, you might have reason to reconsider your ill-judged verdict on the United States. I think that I can summarize the flaw in your reasoning and observations as follows: The consideration that you give to other countries' laws/social verities you do not give to the US, and the criticisms you (correctly) make of aspects of US society you overlook in other countries. e.g.: Israel has admitted gays into its military for many years, but that does not ipso facto imply that life for gays is better or easier there. The fact that gays may still have a very hard time in many regions of the US does not imply that it is behind European countries. Recognizing relationships legally is but one aspect of gay rights, and America is a big country. So is the UK. And truthfully, I don't think that life is better for gays there than in the US. Would you prefer skinheads in Central London or Liverpool to rednecks in Mississippi or Des Moines? Not much difference, in my opinion.

As for your courageous sojourn into matters of American law, it's even more subtle and complex than you analyze (I must say that for a non-lawyer, you did manage to acquit yourself pretty well) but, having graduated from an American Law School (although I do not practice Law), I can say that you succumb to making inferences from certain legal facts that are, in many instances, unwarranted, and do not support the line of argument you offer.

I have travelled a great deal in Europe and Asia (even Africa), and I don't see the US as so far below societal standards in the rest of the West. While I can't criticize you for writing from the vantage point of 2006, I do think that, even for that time, while your comments on US society were in many respects accurate, you did not treat Europe's cultures equally; you looked at only the good there, and only the bad in the US. And that was not warranted. I am old enough to recall when walking with a boyfriend even in New York City would have gotten you into a fistfight, and what I particularly found objectionable in your reasoning was your prognosis. While it is one thing to correctly assess societal faults and problems, it is quite another to judge that, as you wrote, "it will only get worse." That misjudgment betrays a fatal flaw in attempting to understand Americans and their country; the repeated reinvention of national ideals in every age, from 1776 to the Second World War. Americans have continually risen to unexpectedly new challenges, and succeeded in shedding long-held ideas and behavior-patterns. And European countries have had to learn this lesson--for their own benefit--repeatedly.

In any case, I'm glad that I had the opportunity to respond to the original writer.

Cheers,

Allen Roth

"I look up; I look down."