My memory of the film isn’t very good, but the I recall that David’s problem wasn’t the lifestyle he offered Jenny so much as he was a jerk, was already married, had done this before, didn’t love Jenny, etc.
As for the “message,” I’m not sure the film really had one. Wasn’t the film based on a memoir? The film feels sort of like that—here’s a time in my life. Of course, your reading about Paris and David not killing her spirit could be correct, too.
Should intellectual and creative people go to school or participate in other dull activities deemed necessary by society?
Wait, I’m a little confused. Which choice constitutes conformity? (And what do you mean by “dull activities?” Was the “or” supposed to be an “and?”)
In the film I don’t know if the issue is conformity versus intelligence (individuality). To me, David seduces Jenny and she makes a mistake about him. That doesn’t make her unintelligent. She was young and her mistake was understandable. Or maybe I’m not really understanding what you’re asking.
I just know that a lot of people interpreted the film to be against deviating from conformity and I didn’t see it that way.
The or can be an and, but it also works as an and. haha
I don’t mean the issue is intelligence vs. conformity. I mean when is a decision the smart decision and when is it simply passive?
This topic fills in the bingo card for pretentiousness and obscurity.
Bwahahahaha! You obviously haven’t been on this site very long if you think discussing An Education is pretentious and obscure. :P
I think this is one of those questions that can only be answered by experience, Drew.
@Drew
I don’t mean the issue is intelligence vs. conformity. I mean when is a decision the smart decision and when is it simply passive?
Let me see if I understand. So the question you’re asking is, would staying in school be passive (i.e., a form of conformity) or a smart decision for Jenny? I think we also should also factor in whether trusting David (i.e., who he is, his love for her, etc.) is a good judgment or not, too. So you have staying in a school question and trusting David one. I think the latter is not a passive one, and, in hindsight, not trusting David (and staying in school) would have be the wiser choice (but, again, I don’t think this make Jenny’s unintelligent).
Yawn.
I guess what I’m really asking is, why?
Why do we theoretically celebrate rebellion, but then praise conformity as “smart” and “correct”?
We don’t.
I think Drew’s question opens the film up for analysis in terms of chaos, order and sustainability.
David seems to be the perfect conformist – he knows all the rules and roles to play and he plays them well. At first, we think he is sincere and then we find out it is only a finely tuned methodology. Underlying that methodology is a chaotic and unstable existence.
Jenny‘s life is well structured but she is unaware of the chaos beneath the surface of that social structuring.
The difference between Jenny‘s existence and David’s existence is their relationship to a sustainable social structure. What is sustainable is only apparent from temporal experience: the events that make up experience occur in stages and over time.
Why do we theoretically celebrate rebelliousness? It is emblematic of a life force, although not sustainable.
Ultimately, sustainability is smart and intelligent and it requires conformity with the larger power forces, such as societal structures.
@Drew
I’m don’t think we celebrate rebellion or praise conformity—not broadly speaking. The act of making an individual decision that goes against the grain is, in a way, admirable by itself. But if in the specific situation the person lacks good judgment, wisdom, foresight, etc., I’d guess our admiration wouldn’t be so great.
In the film, Jenny’s decision to think for herself and actively choose a path for herself. But is she doing that, or does she make her decision because David swept her off her feet, blinding her judgment with his affections and offering of an exciting lifestyle? The latter seems to be a bigger factor in her decision, and in that way, I think we can say she made a mistake. But again, I’m not saying this to come down hard on her. She’s young and anyone can make this mistake. My point is that her decision is not simply a matter of rebellion-conformity. Does that make sense?
Drew Gregory
I recently saw An Education and I’ve been thinking a lot about the ending. In theory her arguments against school and conforming to the expected lifestyle are all really fair and true, and yet it’s clear her relationship with David is quite unhealthy. Was David simply a bad window into a lifestyle she should have found for herself, or should she have stayed in school like she was told to and eventually does?
Also, what do you think the message is? I interpreted the last line about Paris to imply that she has not lost her adventurous and intellectually curious spirit. She has learned to separate David from the interests they shared. She still romanticizes Paris. And she acts like she’s never been there. Because in her mind she hasn’t. It’s the only way not to allow David to kill her spirit.
And then I’d like to expand this topic beyond the film. Should intellectual and creative people go to school or participate in other dull activities deemed necessary by society? Why is it considered cowardice to comply and stupid to rebel? It seems like both options are frowned upon and that in the end both options can be positive and negative.