I refer, of course, to the 1989 film starring Kathleen Turner & Michael Douglas, directed by Danny DeVito. Why am I starting a thread about a 22-year old movie, you ask? Because I [del]discovered[/del] was informed yesterday by my wife that Comcast Xfinity has it a good number of movies and tv shows available on demand and we watched it last night, so we watched it. She’d never seen it before; I had, of course, but I’d forgotten how awesome it was.
Poll in a moment, but don’t let that stop you. Also don’t hesitate to talk about any aspect of the movie that you feel like; nothing related to Turner, Douglas, or DeVito, is off topic, though Samwise Gamgee is a stretch.
Now to reiterate: In the 1989 film The War of the Roses, early-middle-age married couple Oliver and Barbara Rose, going through a divorce, each refuse to give up their home and its furnishings. Over the course of the movie their conflict escalates until, in a blackly comic final-act duel, they barricade themselves in the house and fight to the death; ultimately both die. Who was more at fault, and why?
My two cents: Oliver was in the wrong initially by ignoring and not supporting his wife, but Barbara was in the wrong later when she started acting with real violence by locking her husband in the sauna.
Don’t forget that her first – well, second – act of outright hostility was sticking her fingers into nose while he was sleeping, and that she hit him during the subsequent argument, a blow he does not return. Admittedly he says that he will hit back next time, but never does he strike the first blow.
Despite what I wrote above, my sympathy for Oliver was much less in last night’s viewing than it was when I watched the movie in theatres way back when. His emotional neglect of Barbara was much clearer to me now. And of course he’s the one who barricades them in the house.
I’ve always seen Barbara as being more in the wrong, if only because she strikes me as the one who essentially decides everything has to go awful.
Oliver’s hardly a model husband, and he might be more to blame for the failure of the marriage, but he’s not the one who, well, initiates active hostilities. It seems to me that her motivation is far more vindictive, as well.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, though – it’s possible my recollection isn’t correct. Was planning on rewatching soon with my wife (ha!), so maybe this will motivate.
Didn’t they show the dog right after that scene? I thought she was lying about that just to freak him out.
I thought she came off looking like the more unreasonable one. Douglas seemed potentially willing to reconcile a few times along the way but she wouldn’t even consider it. Even the very last second of their lives when she removes his arm from her.
I took Bryan Ekers to mean that the bit with Bennie the dog was probably not in the original script, but was added in the interest of making Barbara seem less hateful–perhaps after test audiences complained.
Actually I don’t think that her unwillingness to reconcile made Barbara unreasonable. Rather, it was the lengths she was willing to go to in order to hurt Oliver. She’s always the one who inititates the physical violence; she’s always the one who ups the ante on the emotional violence. Even if you grant that she didn’t “really” kill and cook Bennie the dog, there is no point in claiming to have done so other than to provoke and/or hurt Oliver.
Thank Cecil someone else gets it! I point out this amusing little irony to people almost any time this movie comes up in conversation, and all I ever get is “And?”
Yes, but the dog only appears in that momentary scene, and not at all when DeVito and the housemaid show up later, which suggests to me that they used a generic dog-reaction shot because some test audience thought it was terrible that Barb killed the dog.
I wonder then if he actually ran over the cat in this alternate version?
I found them both completely unlikeable but I really enjoyed hating them and seeing them torture each other. I think I wouldn’t have been able to have much fun with that if they had killed pets.
“Woof. Woof.” I was all like :eek: til I saw the dog running around.
While I believe Oliver was a total douchebag and had it comin… I tend to say that Barbara was more in the wrong because she let her hate and resentment build up without ever trying to reasonably express her dissatisfaction. When she finally let it loose, she totally blindsided Oliver. (Like I said, he had it comin’… but.) I don’t think she was justified and fighting fair by escalating to violence. She absolutely got what she deserved when he ruined her dinner party.
Bottom line: Oliver wasn’t a mindreader. If he was such a clueless douchebag, why did she not once ever tell him how his dismissiveness made her feel? If the movie had shown Barbara making some effort to communicate to him how he made her feel like a worthless piece of shit and then he still ignored her issues and acted like it was no big deal, then it’s on him. Not that I advocate actually trying to kill one another. But I understand, after everything she did with that house, NOT wanting to be the one who moved out. Had her initial “I hate you and want out” approach been a bit more reasonable, maybe he wouldn’t have been as much of a dick.
But then again, she knew him and knew she was dealing with an ambitious, narcissistic lawyer, so perhaps she knew a reasonable approach would have been pointless. Or the movie was supposed to show us where she’d tried. I didn’t see it. Looked to me like she kept all her hateful feelings to herself until they exploded out in a big friggin’ mess.
I put almost all of the blame on Barbara… which is a weakness of the screenplay, of Kathleen Turner, of the editing, or of all three.
For the movie to work perfectly, BOTH of them should be clearly blameworthy in different ways. Instead, in my opinion, we don’t see nearly enough of what was making Barbara unhappy. The movie makes it seem as if Oliver just came home one night and found that his wife just didn’t like him any more. I suppose it’s fine to portray Oliver as so dense that he never saw how unhappy she was (or why), but it’s bad filmmaking to keep US in the dark about how unhappy she is (and why).
In the absence of scenes showing some justification for Barbara’s unhappiness, Kathleen Turner has to be VERY likable to get a viewer even slightly on her side. and she’s just not that likable.
Her character just isn’t fleshed out enough- she seems to go from ditzy college girl to bitter, middle-aged shrew overnight.
Exactly. I understand why she was so unhappy. I’ve been treated like I don’t matter or count and it is very rage-inducing. But before I butchered anybody’s dog (or implied that I did), I talked to the person about how they were treating me and how I felt about it. Lapsing into pouty silence (as she did every time we saw a scene showing another example of Oliver’s douchebaggery) rather than communicating… that just puts all this on her, IMO.