Jazz
I thought I should reply. As we had already had a small debate on this Film.
As I said before, I think this movie is little more than a TV drama given a cinematic release. There is little depth to it, and it follows a farly predictable narrative arc which is so obviously sign posted throughout, you can tell what’s going to happen way in advance.
I’d like to comment on a couple of your points.
Ok, the more obvious issue the film raises is, as you say, that there are no short cuts to happiness and self respect, however, this is not really earth shattering stuff, this idea has been used as the moral to many stories over the millenia. And in some ways that is what makes this movie so pedestrian, because that is the point, and not much else. OK Nick Hornby may have had little to work with, as I’m sure Lynn Barber’s journal is hardly a multi-layered piece of prose (I haven’t read it so I’m guessing here),
What the film does show though is the necessity to rise throught the social classes in post war Britain, and how in the early sixties marriage was still an acceptable way to improve your social mobility. Jenny’s father can see the value of a marriage to a man like David, because Jenny can become more middle class finacially and socially without the necessity of a university education (after which she would only become a teacher or civil servant anyway!). Hence the reason David’s father sanctions the marriage is because Jenny ultimately will benefit. He IS thinking of her financial well-being AND her social progress. This is something that most people in Britain aspired to in the fifties and sixties.
So, I don’t think the film is a critique of materialist values, in fact I think it is a celebration of personal financial growth, social mobility and the development of European culture post WWII. Britain was a very boring, uptight place in the late forties and fifties, and was, in the sixties, about to change radically socially and culturally; Jenny’s interests reflect the burgeoning middle class intelligensia’s interests of the time – music, art, film, food. All the things that would ultimately go mainstream.
And I do not think the film has a particularly feminist slant. Jenny is a strong-willed young woman but her eagerness to marry David undermines any ideas of a feminist angle. And feminism just didn’t really exist in early sixties Britain, woman still got married and had kids and looked after the home.
One thing that did make me feel a little uncomfortable about the film was the focus on David being Jewish. Not only was he Jewish, but he was a crook and a scoundrel. He made his money (and lots of it) from ripping off old ladies, and creating massively over populated housing slums; we even saw him consorting with notorius slum landlord Peter Rachman. I’m not sure if I’m just reading a little too much into it, but I did feel a little anti-semitism crept into this aspect of the story.
Anyway, that my two pen’orth.
I disagree. There’s a lot of depth here.
First and formemost it takes “innocent young girls” serious. Jenny may be inexperienced, but she WANTS experience. More important she’s no fool. She knows David wants to nail her from nanosecond one. Moreover she knows that losing her virginity is part and parcel of the experience she wants. Here she is stuck in her boring suburban home listening to Juliette Greco recrods and longing to escape to paris. So along comes a strange man offering ehr a ride — it’s the classic scenario of That Which Every Girl Must Avoid. And she knows it. But she gets in the car and i the end gets what she really wants.
The kick of the film is that David is more naive than she is. He thinks he can continue his charming scondrel ways in perpetuity. But he DOES have to pay the piper at the clsoe. To his great surprise. For Jenny it’s a lot easier. She knew perfectyl well that as charming as he is, David is no Prince Charming.
As this all takes place just prior to “Swinging London” it’s clear that Jenny wouldn’t have been taken in by that most magisterial of culural demons HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED!
(Roman Polanski)
this actually starting to sound worth watching – spelle chcek dvaid !
“this actually starting to sound worth watching”
actually,it’s not…it’s basically a soft-core “coming-of-age” genre of a film,don’t believe the Ehrensteins of this world.
who would think this film would represent the ones who found Deep End a shallow film.
anyways,if you want to see a great Lone Scherfig film,check out Italian for Beginners,her major achievement….
whoever thinks the mediocrity named An Education is better than the former film mentioned will have to give me some valid points!
Having just seen AN EDUCATION, I tend to agree with David Ehrenstein and others who value this film. I note the genre, narrative, and characterological critiques, but on balance think that the performances override any quibbles I have with some of the conventions used.
In particular, the acting of Carey Mulligan in the role of Jenny could have gone in any number of directions (REALLY naive and unsophisticated; worldly-wise; duped and betrayed; cautious and wary; smart yet lazy; dumb but pushy, etc. etc.). Mulligan provided a lot of “colors,” in the process creating a complex girl-woman that transcends the usual banality of the coming-of-age drama.
Likewise, the father (Alfred Molina) could have been played as someone who wants his daughter to simply marry rich OR go to Oxford to ensure her own success. Instead, Molina plays a complex role that even allows him to squelch his latent anti-Semitism and accept David’s Jewishness (even if it’s partly due to pecuniary motives).
And, of course, David (Peter Sarsgaard) may be just seen as a conventional Lothario but the actor invests a certain charm to the part that is a few notches above that Big Bad Wolf stereotype. I do wish that we had seen him “educate” Jenny to more things than dog races and nightclubs (Did they go to the Louvre whilst in Paris?) but she certainly learns a bit of worldly OUTWARD sophistication from him, as well as the hard knocks of disappointment in love. In Sarsgaard’s portrayal, David seems genuinely disturbed when the affair with Jenny has to end (yet not so devastated that he can’t move on to another conquest easily enough).
I haven’t seen ITALIAN FOR BEGINNERS, so can’t make the comparisons/contrasts that Dimitris wants to make.
I strongly disagree with Abel’s comment questioning if this could be viewed as a feminist film. I think it is a total feminist film. And it’s a fresh, lovely, thoughtful, provocative, rich, and sensitive film at that. The audience senses Jenny’s worth from the get-go and we’re hugely disappointed she’s not going to take her college entry exam because she meet a man. And even though we too adore David at the beginning—he’s rather dreamy and simply too good to be true (and unfortunately that ends up to be the case)—we feel incredibly uncomfortable about this smart, young, confident girl squandering her youth and talents on a man. The entire film is an exploration of Jenny’s discovering of her self-worth. And that is the definition of a feminist film. A feminist role model doesn’t have to be a ballbuster or know all the answers from the very beginning. She is a character who discovers her self-respect by making a bold choice, a choice that allows her to rescue herself.
Sorry David, but I cannot agree. Jenny is naive, and is manipulated by both her father and David. Her final choice to go to Oxford merely panders to her father’s aspirations and ideas of what constitutes social progression. At no point does she manifest any qualities that could be considered “feminist”, neither does the movie.
WRT to the feminist issue, I agree and disagree with Abel. In some sense her final decision to go to Oxford is not really a sign of the type of strong woman that feminism would endorse. To me, the film’s depiction of this choice doesn’t stem from a awareness of the value of education or out of strength—so much as all the other alternatives are less appealing. She has little choice. The film seems to want to give this a feminist flavor by having Jenny come to her senses and join forces with her teacher to get back on the “right” track. However, I don’t think the film does a good job of conveying the importance of education in terms of Jenny’s self-respect or self-actualization.
Abel,
I wanted to address some of the other points in your first post. You said, “There is little depth to it, and it follows a farly predictable narrative arc which is so obviously sign posted throughout, you can tell what’s going to happen way in advance.”
I wasn’t sure of the film’s level of depth (but I’m starting to feel like it’s not very deep), but I do agree that the film’s narrative was fairly simple and predictable. Also, that the any “lessons” of the film seemed rather trite. But again, I felt that there might be something more below the surface. Again, I’m starting to side with you that there isn’t much under the surface, but I disagree with your case against a materialist critique.
I think you go to far in describing the film as a “…celebration of personal financial growth, etc.” Jenny’s father serves her badly precisely because he does not see beyond materialism. Had he done so, there’s a good chance he would be able to discover the type of man David really was. Jenny also throws everything away (including a sense of morals—she understands that David’s prosperity comes through questionable means) for material prosperity. Finally, the faculty can’t give a non-financial benefit for education.
@David
There’s a big problem with your take on the film: Jenny may be aware of some of the things about David (e.g. he’s no angel), but she’s absolutely believed that he was going to marry her (i.e. she wasn’t aware that he was married). What she wanted was to marry David and live the high life, but she doesn’t get that.
In any event, I don’t know how your explanation shows the film has a lot of depth.
@Frank
I agree that Mulligan provides a solid performance, but I can’t agree that her performance transcends the banalities of a coming-of-age film. I think her acting is fine—and I especially liked her look: girlish, pretty, but not Hollywood beauty—but I’m not sure how her character is significantly different from other coming-of-age protagonists.
I also disagree about Molina’s performance. He’s basically a one-note character, in this case someone driven by financial considerations. His putting aside David’s Jewishness makes him consistent with the main thing that drives his character. Any other potential sides of him (his love for Jenny) doesn’t come across very strongly, imo.
@Dimitris
I side with your take on this film, but I really didn’t like Italian for Beginners.
I just saw it last night. I was surprisingly captivated by most of the film only to watch it completely unravel at the end into conventional coming-of-age period piece crap in which the woman who flaunts convention gets her comeuppance and learns to follow the rules. More disturbing was the film’s blatant anti-semitism that I’m surprised hasn’t gotten more notice (beyond David Edelstein, it seems most people have given that a pass) – David plays like a series of anti-semitic stereotypes worthy of Jew Süss.
DAVID EHRENSTEIN wrote: “The kick of the film is that David is more naive than she is. He thinks he can continue his charming scondrel ways in perpetuity. But he DOES have to pay the piper at the clsoe. To his great surprise. For Jenny it’s a lot easier. She knew perfectyl well that as charming as he is, David is no Prince Charming.”
I don’t see how the film supports this reading. There’s no piper for David to pay. His wife says he’s been doing this serially with other women. He will just move on to another, probably younger, one. The only question I had was what exactly his game was. He knew it would all unravel – he’s not portrayed as that delusion – and that it was only a matter of time but the way he plays it, he seems to want to completely destroy her life first. We only get one brief reaction shot in the car that shows some sense of moral conflict but absolutely no psychological depth.
Just saw this film. I’m curious if anyone else had thoughts on this (And hopefully I articulate this well enough)…
I kind of felt like this movie was a little propagandist about the importance of going off to a good school. Granted, it’s a memoir, but I think it’s trying to serve as a little more than just that obviously. So that said, what if David didn’t have those couple very bad secrets. What if he was a good guy?
Iunno… any thoughts?
Alex you are on to something…
I was disappointed that David turned out to be the big bad wolf. I was almost angry when I saw him steal the painting. Suddenly this movie was not what I hoped it would be. What if David could not be easily dismissed as the bad guy? What would that change for Jenny? Suddenly we would have seen a different movie… one with a more unique ending at least.
My thought is that this movie could have tackled 2 interesting stories, but it chose the less interesting one for me. I wanted to learn how Jenny would feel leaving education for a free ticket to luxury and art. Then what? How would she feel? Would she regret it one day? Issues concerning independence could then be tackled… importance of money in our lives could be analysed along with its meaning… which would surely get us analyzing ourselves… which would be cool huh? :D
Peter, I agree one hundred percent. You nailed my feelings on the head. The ending with David as a respectable, good character would have made much more interesting food for thought.
I’d like to hear opinions of those who felt differently though. Anyone with some insight in the opposition?
Peter, I agree one hundred percent. You nailed my feelings on the head. The ending with David as a respectable, good character would have made much more interesting food for thought.
I’d like to hear opinions of those who felt differently though. Anyone with some insight in the opposition?
The most interesting thing about “An Education”, aside from those mentioned above, was the implication that the arts and culture can be seductive in negative ways. Jenny is attracted to the idea of attending concerts, buying art at an auction, and going to Paris as much, if not more than, she is to David. Meeting David, risks and all, was like winning the lottery for Jenny, a smart girl who only wants to see more than her middle class flat and boarding school. When David comes along, she discovers that she is willing to lay down quite a bit for the experience of getting away.
As for the anti-semitism of the film, well, I don’t know. It is based on a memoir, and I’d like to know if the detail of David’s Jewishness is factual or if it was an added gesture in the screenwriting. If it was added, then, yes, you may be able to build a case for anti-semitism. But even then, I think David’s ethnicity has a didactic point; namely, that Jenny’s parents (especially) and educational authorities seem to be more hung up on David’s ethnic background than his predatory nature. They can’t see the forest for the trees. The story structure, in my opinion, implies that David’s race is the most benign of his characteristics, and yet we see that certain characters are very concerened with it. Ultimately, then, the movie seems to be exploring the notion that race is far less important than character. Maybe I’m way off on this one, but I thought the movie made it a point, through Jenny’s father, to indicate that anti-semetic attitudes were, if anything, clouding his judgment.
@Phantom
Interesting point on my perceived anti-semitism. I suppose it does add another angle to Jenny’s parents’ attitude to David and their lack of awareness with regard to his predatory nature. Also, having read much of Nick Hornby’s novels and journalism I am fairly positive that any anti-semitism would have been introduced as a part of the story structure, however, it can easily be misconstrued, so maybe it is a fault in the direction and editing of the film rather than the writing.
From what I understand Hornby freely adapted the story from a piece in Granta and not the actual memoir itself. So it plays fast and loose with the facts. (and, in fact, I recall reading an interview in which the author was angry that Hornby made her father into an anti-semite) In any case, using David’s Jewishness as a “didactic point” is completely besides the point. The film traffics in classic European anti-semitic stereotypes (the Jew as slumlord, the Jew as conniving conman and huckster, the Jew as effete cosmopolitan and callow intellectual, the Jew as sexual predator who will deflower your virgin Christian daughters – the only thing that is missing is that David isn’t represented as being cheap ). The film wants to suggest that David is only in this position because of societal prejudice but that doesn’t explain his treatment of Jenny nor does it offer any actual insight into his behavior. And nor does it excuse the film of anti-semitism since David himself turns out to be nothing more than an empty vessel (a vehicle for the author’s self-discovery or whatever such nonsense).
Perhaps I didn’t know enough about classic European anti-semetic stereotypes have David’s race register as a point of offense in the film. From my vantage point, it seems about as arbitrary as him being Russian or Chinese, or any other “other”. I understood that certain characters in the film held prejudices against him for his ethnicity, but since they didn’t seem to be stating generalizations about him (other than the “wandering Jew” comment, of course), I didn’t see the movie as siding with their prejudices.
In the interview that you read, Ari, did the author discuss wheather David was Jewish or not, or did she merely mention that her father wasn’t anti-semetic? She may merely be upset that her father is being depicted in an unflattering light. But the very fact that we know Hornby added that detail may support the notion that he wanted to have a didactic counterpoint to some of the anti-semetic stereotypes being embraced by factual details. I don’t know; I’m only speculating here.
Yeah, I would say the usage is clearly not arbitrary, Phantom. Whether intentional or not, there’s a whole baggage attached to David’s character. I just searched around online and found this. (http://www.fighthatred.com/reader-contributions/the-wandering-jew-in-an-education-the-anatomy-of-an-anti-semitic-film). I don’t agree with all of the arguments but many of the points are absolutely accurate.
Yes, the real David was Jewish (named Simon something) but Hornby changed a lot of things and he even said that he only kept David Jewish because he was interested in connecting the character to a real historical figure (a real life slumlord British gangster who also happened to be Jewish). Hornby spoke about some of his misgivings here: (http://www.forward.com/articles/121166/).
“Sorry David, but I cannot agree. Jenny is naive, and is manipulated by both her father and David. Her final choice to go to Oxford merely panders to her father’s aspirations and ideas of what constitutes social progression. At no point does she manifest any qualities that could be considered “feminist”, neither does the movie.”
In regards to whether this film is a feminist film or not, I think it’s important to consider what Jenny wants for her own life and how the final outcome stacks up. Jenny is, from the outset of the film, preoccupied with issues of taste, class and culture — she considers attending Oxford an escape from her own dry and strait-laced upbringing, telling a group of friends that when she does attend, she’s going to “read what I want and listen to what I want.” In the meantime, she suffers the cello lessons and the Latin exams because it’s par for the course according to her father and teachers. But Jenny quickly realizes they see Oxford as a stepping stone to marriage or the civil service, a working-class future of domestic boredom that notably echoes her mother’s present and not-at-all resembles her own daydreams of reading Camus and smoking cigarettes. It is that rift, between what Jenny wants and what others want for Jenny, that best enables David to prey on Jenny. He offers her a life of culture, with none of the work. What makes the film “feminist” is that Jenny comes to understand that only she can create the life she wants for herself. Not even taking into account the Virginia Woolf allusion at the end of the film, An Education seems very much a feminist film to me ;)
Jazzaloha
I wanted to spend some time getting to the heart of this film (i.e. identifying what it is about) in order to fully understand this film, but that’s not going to happen. Instead, I just thought I’d throw out some of thoughts swirling around inside my head.
To me, one of the key questions to understanding the film is knowing what Jenny learns—or, perhaps more broadly, what exactly is the content of the education in question. I’m interested in hearing other people’s answers to that question, but here are some random thoughts about that question and other issues:
1. If I had to write a review, I think I’d explore the fairy-tale element about the film. There’s a sense that Sarsgaard’s character, David, is sort of a “Big Bad Wolf” figure tempting his prey with cakes and sweets (different fairy tales, I realize, but you get the point). Jenny wants forgo hard work and school (boring) and live the fun and easy life. The lesson she learns is that there are no short-cuts to happiness and self-respect.
2. A secondary issue to the film seems to be a critique of materialistic values. The father, even though he’s well-intentioned, basically makes a bad decision for his daughter just because he only thinks of her financial well-being. In some ways, Jenny’s father and David seem to have similar values.
3. I wonder if and how much the film is a feminist one. One could argue that the film’s lesson is that women should not be dependent on men and that in order to achieve this, they must get a good education. (Not very satisfying, but there you go.)
Other thoughts?