Can someone explain like I'm 5?
The entire movie. I don't get what it was trying to do at all.
Don't criticize me for not understanding, explain it to me.
Might have been easier to understand if you'd read the book, which was one of Philip Roth's finest. Certainly the film diverged considerably, but it was essentially as David Straitharn's narrator summed up in the end.
The Swede came of age during a time when anti-semitism still played a role in American life. Because he was fair-haired & blue-eyed, because he mastered the profile of the All-American, Right Stuff, sort, his friends & family assumed he'd be able to do anything at all—doors still closed to them would swing open wide for him. He embodied the community's grandest hopes & aspirations.
But then Merry is caught up, for whatever reasons the viewer might impute, into the radicalism of the 60s. Commits several heinous crimes, & in so doing, constrains Swede's life. He can't get over her, maybe he shouldn't. Essentially the film seemed content with the fairly familiar theme of how even those who Seem To Have It All, also suffer in silence.
I think Roth also intended it as a critique of the generations: I recall a passage, after Swede reunites with Merry, in which he argues that she suffers from a generational inability to think for herself, adopting whatever idea or cult happened to be in vogue.
I found it, as a baby boomer myself, ironic, inasmuch as the Greatest Generation, for all of their deserved accolades, really never had to plan the course of their lives—depression, war, prosperity, etc. all lay before them. It takes nothing away from their accomplishments to point out that they tackled the challenges set before them mostly with grace, but were not required to ask of themselves, as Merry & her generation were, what is my life all about?
That's a digression, sorry. If you found the film the least bit intriguing, I recommend the book. Many of Roth's novels decline into self-indulgent verbal flummery, but American Pastoral is fairly lean & gripping. The passage during which she reveals to Swede that she partook in other bombings is quite intense.
Just finished this. Your explanation helped but it's still over my head. I just feel so horribly sorry for the parents. As far as I could see they did all they could for her. The therapist on the other hand should be delicensed.
And the mother's break down does show there's some mental illness in the family so that explains some of it.
I could really relate to the Mother getting married instead of living her dream. That's what we did in the 60's. Those of us who were followers. Lots to think about in the story. Again, thanks for your input. I hope the '5 year old' who asked the question eventually sees your answer.
I think I'm going to re-read the book before I think or comment any further about the movie. I'd quite forgotten, for example, that Merry's mother divorced the Swede rather than simply going made.
Frankly, too, I was shocked by the casting of Ewan McGregor as the Swede. Not sure why. He would be the ultimate Landsmann passing for a shaygetz actor.
One thing in particular I think they improved upon was Merry's deterioration. In the book she's gained weight, become quite obese by the time Swede finds her again. I don't recall anything about her physical health that would lead the reader to believe the Swede told the truth when he told her uncle she was dead. Ironically, the film Merry, who appeared genuinely to be on death's door, survives to the end.
Dunno....
The book is superb and something to savor, especially the sentimental boyhood memories (it's a great study of memory and story). I found myself reading pages over again to get at what was being said and reread the first 90 pages after I had finished.
What's missing in the film is that the Swede had an affair with the therapist after the bombing and at the time of his death had remarried another woman and had two sons . Presumably the affair with the architect caused the breakup of the marriage to dawn. Also, I thought the book was clear that Merry had died and wasn't just a story he had told his brother (although that would make sense to conceal her continuing existence). However, the thing about the book and less so the film is that the whole story was based on the scant facts obtained at the meeting at the reunion and the prior meeting with the Swede. So it is strictly an invention or interpolation and not a biographical tail.