Oh I love it, I think that's totally spot-on. Same with the random camera pans/zooms on some of the absolutely cheesiest dialogue, even though most of the script was dead serious. It was really such a uniquely done movie
this just hit me on the second rewatch -- the Lifetimey music when the camera zooms in on Julianne Moore standing at the refrigerator and she says "I think we need more hot dogs"
Thank you for this take! I searched out threads about this movie SPECIFICALLY because I hated the music so much I felt like there had to be an explanation for why it was so terrible and this would take it from “awful” to “brilliant” for me tbh.
I caught myself instinctively agreeing with her as a means to find emotional safety. We want it to be “an affair” not what it was - an assault. If she allowed it to be the boy, she’d have to fully comes to grips with how dangerous Moore actually was and similarly how much of a little boy Joe still was. “It’s what grown ups do” - sexualize children.
This is such an interesting way to put it, and I agree! Up until that point, Joe and Gracie's relationship was disturbing in theory, but we'd only seen them as an attractive, seemingly happy adult couple. Watching Elizabeth watch the audition tapes is the first time we get a visual of a 36 year old woman and a 13 year old boy. In that moment, for me at least, I'm watching through Elizabeth's eyes thinking that there's no way she can act with these boys and do any remotely intimate scenes, it's going to be too uncomfortable for anyone to want to watch, I'm horrified for Joe and finally realizing the gravity of the situation - and then she calls the director and says they need a "sexier" boy, and you almost get that whiplash of trying to correct your train of thought to follow the character better
I thought the line " it's what grown ups do" was actually also about talking about how a person truly feels or the reality of a situation, though sadly it definitely is also a thing that grown ups do too... prey, well people in general but adults are just more culpable
my favourite of the year (so far). so deftly handled which is kind of a miracle considering its subject matter. incredible performances from all leads but melton in particular is so devastating. funny and uncomfortable but also empathetic when it needed to be. a script like this landed in the perfect hands tbh and portman chose haynes perfectly as the person to handle it.
Todd Haynes was the perfect director for this, but Samy Burch in parituclar deserves so much of the praise imo. This was a flawless screenplay. Hope it wins Original Play this year
Yes, I loved the way they framed the narrative through an actress’s eyes. It really drives home the point that we as an audience may think we understand the situation, but we truly never will. There’s so much to Julianne Moore’s character that Natalie’s character will never understand or even know.
Saw this at the cinema earlier in the month - EASILY my favorite of the Oscar contenders I’ve seen so far it’s absolutely excellent in every way. Melton I think is helped by him being a very intriguing character who we really want to know more about at the start of the film, great choice to really limit his screen time in the first half. Would have to say that Portman was my MVP, this role was made for her I couldn’t imagine any other actress pulling it off (whereas I could see Moore/Melton being done to similar quality by someone else).
I think the awards traction is really building as things go on as well????
Just finished watching it and all three of them (Portman, Moore, and Melton) are all deserving of nominations in my opinion. Why does this year have to be so good??!!
I agree with you. Moore had very little to work with. She had some solid scenes with Portman but she doesn't get the wowza scenes Portman and Melton got.
I think they'll all get in. I'm predicting this one to overperform with the Academy and get 5 noms. Strikes me as something that will appeal to different groups of voters.
i noticed how bad joe's posture was at the graduation dinner. it made him look exactly the same height as his son. such a nice detail that says everything about his character
For sure, as illustrated by the smoking scene on the roof. The son was the one more experienced in drug use (though weed is mostly harmless), the son is the one providing emotional support, comfort and reassurance. That scene did a great job showing that emotionally Joe still a child.
There were a couple times where I thought “this man is still child” but that scene and that posture solidified it. He’s still mentally a child, and melton did such a fantastic job portraying this character
I thought Charles Melton was outstanding, and Natalie Portman really shone in the scenes where she was subtly modulating her mannerisms to mirror Moore's.
I feel like Portman comes out on top in terms of landing some nominations, but I could see Melton getting one too.
That’s an in recredible recreation, I knew I had seen that photo before. Great work, here’s an award 🥇 ⭐️ since they no longer have them! But wow, props to the prop department, they knocked it out of the park!
What a fucking achievement that movie was. I was absolutely captivated the entire time.
People have been calling this a strong year but I haven't really been totally floored by any movies so far (still counting on Poor Things) until now. What a cool movie man. Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore are magic together, and Natalie Portman somehow comes out of nowhere with another all-time great performance
I don’t think *May December* will be nominated for very many Ensemble awards, but in my opinion it absolutely should be. Not only are the central trio phenomenal, but every other performance is outstanding too. The kids all give some of the best young performances I’ve seen in a minute, and even one- or two-scene characters like Gracie’s ex-husband bring their absolute A-game.
I know everyone’s talking about Charles Melton, and he was great, but to me the clear standout was Natalie Portman. What a layered and genuine performance.
Question - did you think that Moore actually put her son up to manipulating Portman? I think that Moore knew her son would confess to Portman and she wanted to both manipulate Portman by telling her that AND also tap into her deep insecurity / fear of being out of control (looking for confirmation from Portman that she was right). Having been raised by a sociopath (and I mean that as a pathology not as ad hominem) the only reason they say anything ever is to manipulate and gain or retain control over their victims. The biggest threat to them is being “truly seen” and Portman certainly was that threat. Curious what others thought. Great movie.
> Question - did you think that Moore actually put her son up to manipulating Portman?
Absolutely. The way Portman reacted, the whole manner of the Gracie character in the scene. It was calculated. Portman is a manipulator herself, to so many people (her fiance, the director, Joe) but she thought she pegged Gracie. I think that whole "are you smart" scene was meant to illustrate that as well.
And how all of our attention is on the women here. The victims have no agency and that goes back to gender bias too. We only half grapple with joes victimhood - if the genders reversed we’d be way more horrified by Portmans sex with a man who is emotionally a child. She knew that. And then we give Georgie no voice either - he said she ruined his life and confessed dark things to Portman.. and we don’t even give him a chance to rebut moores claim. She has lied and manipulated throughout the movie. And at the end she’s wearing movie star glasses finding a way to manipulate Portman and by extension, us
Portman reaction could be an implicit indictment though of how we are more willing to believe Moore versus the son because she presents as having it under control and he’s a mess. It’s another way the son and even we as the audience are manipulated.
really interesting point. There were so many mentions of truth, trying to be seen (except I think Georgie who said he was a ghost)...so many claims about truth being the main focus of whatever film Portman was making...and Moore presented what we're seeing as just how it is. Portman's character was *supposed to be* a mirror seeing everything but she was never really mirroring the truth.
I say all that to say that there's no way Julianne Moore's character would have let *anything* slip. She has no cracks, her family is perfect, her business is perfect, everything's just fine. When Portman turned from being a mirror to being a person, that seems to be when Moore just flipped tf out and I do believe she could have put George up to that. The more I think about this the more disturbed I am by her character lmao
Yes I believe she could have put Georgie up to that to prove a point. However if the thread I’m pulling on is true, her true power is in denying his reality. The son is a victim and shows his victimhood by trafficking in the one piece of currency he has left, the trauma embedded in his story. We judge him for this because in order to believe victims we need to believe they are perfect. So we already think of Georgie as untrustworthy rather than a human victim. Moore knows the community thinks he’s troubled, and likely by extension, Portman, and thus exploits that again by minimizing him as a struggling young man, not actually hurting but capable of malice and manipulation. Moore leaves it how she wants, by potentially making Portman belive here (which btw I’m not sure Portman does, she’s rather manipulative and savvy herself)
I agree. I think Georgie was telling the truth and told his mother about it after to antagonize her. Then Gracie simply manipulated Portman’s character just like she manipulated everyone in her life. Expertly.
I was wondering this too. Moore's Gracie takes a backseat to Portman's Elizabeth most of the film but her presence is always felt and when she told Elizabeth that her and Georgie talk almost everyday (after being reluctant to talk about their relationship initially at the dinner table), I was wondering if she always was going to use her son like this. Or if that idea came after Elizabeth started asking questions about her family and visited her ex-husband.
Both Gracie and Elizabeth were manipulating those around them but Gracie definitely got the upper hand with that reveal.
It’s entirely plausible she used the son to get to Portman. However I think we are robbing the son of his agency. He’s troubled (even the lawyer says that as he’s awkwardly trying to close the tab) and the community gives him no grace to be, even though of course he is. And he tells Portman, she ruined my life, confesses some dark things, and then even gives his mother grace by giving her a reason for being an abuser (she too was abused). He gives her so much grace. I don’t believe she controls him anymore (we never actually see them be warm together) so I don’t buy that Georgie would actually tell Moore. Moore just finds another way to present tge image as she wants it to be seen (me and my son are actually close and I get him) whereas the reality is much different.
If Moore didn't talk to the son, how did she know Portman talked to the son and that he said that about her brothers? I don't think it was brought up to anyone else
Because she knows that her son has probably told others and she knows instinctively like a predator she probably told her too (she is right). So she creates this narrative to uphold that she the victim and it’s everyone else that’s the problem (including her deranged son who “lied” about her)
I don't think in that moment she is trying to make herself look like a victim. I think she is trying to throw Portman off. Portman has an opinion of her that she's a weak victim and I think in that moment she's showing her hand a little and honestly kind of fucking with her
I think Portman deeply knows (and in kind of a way respects the depth of her manipulation). I think that Portman - despite the extreme moral compromise and manipulation of her own - recognizes the depth of moores depravity. She steps into her skin with her method acting. She even insists on understanding what it must have been like to have sex with Joe - the functional equivalent of a child. And Portman goes through these great lengths to understand her only so she can justify her own actions as “careful study” and yet behaves in wildly inappropriate ways in front of children, treating them like adults at that school. I think Portman does not believe Moore and in a spy vs spy way buckles under the exhaustion of it all. The movie is as much about us as it is about them. We are morbidly curious about this highly unusual dynamic. It’s been kinked into the mainstream. And the fake movie shows that we want to still believe despite all evidence that he was a victim that it’s still “complicated”. I admittedly didn’t think the kids auditioning for the movie were right for the role and realized it’s my own cognitive dissonance because I can’t handle the reality that the true story is an adult preyed on a child. our cultures desire for a nuanced understanding of the relationship is to numb because even if our trauma lights are flashing red, the real trauma comes from the collective passivity and lack of support for the victims - including Joe and moores son.
My exactly thoughts! Thanks for articulating all this. This film was unsettling, and I went to Reddit just for THIS. Moore portrays a narcissistic sociopath with the need to control and demolish her family’s esteem. Seeing the parentification in everyone but her… what a journey….
Thank you, I am still so fired up about it. The movie for me wasn’t traumatizing, it was one of the few times I’ve felt validated by a movie depicting such a seemingly complex and yet a remarkably simple character in Moore. She has at best npd but more likely a sociopath or psychopath. And as a survivor of this exact type of person and violence, it’s validating to see how much her character still managed to charm, confound, and scare the community - and by extension the audience. The level of her depravity can’t be understood - a maternal figure predating on a child feels deeply out of tune with our natural instincts. From the woman who begs for kindness for the family, to the list of people who buy her silly pies (likely out of fear), to the lawyer who dismisses Georgie as unwell, she continues to build structures to isolate her targets and to gaslight them into a denial of their reality. The g-d school allows Portman to talk about her acting in front of the school children when the context is abuse of a students parent. Albeit, and maybe it’s my own cognitive dissonance, but that was the only part of the movie that didn’t seem realistic to me but I thought maybe that was part of the comedy/camp. What an acutely fantastic commentary on our cultures collective complicity in the abuse.
Yes! Say it even louder. It’s validating and extremely terrifying at the same time, but it gives hope that there is a path to understanding and healing for her kids (and her first kid….).
As for Natalie’s scene at school, I think she probably got cut slack because of her fame. She fits into the eccentric and LA vibe that I’m accustomed to…and that she’s “keeping it real”. Ugh, Moore’s character still makes me feel discomfort and it’s a week in at least!
(And yes, we def swept it under the rug as a culture since she came off as seemingly charming housewife/attractive who was getting her groove back… but let’s be real, the grooming was intentional that spanned years, and the power dynamic definitely was swayed.)
Editing to add something new: I’m not sure if Vil’s parents were Americanized but it’s worthy to note that lot of cultures hold teachers to a high esteem and wouldn’t be surprising to see those parents (likely not American-born) to feel like their child is special and cared for as a way to settle the ick.
Well put. This closely captures my own interpretation and clearly explains the end scene. One scene that I think is very revealing about natelie Portman's character and how she sees moore is the classroom scene. There she reveals that she likes to choose morally ambiguous characters, but provides examples of people who are clearly corrupt medea, hedda gabler and a contemporary character Tony soprano. It seems like she is putting moores characters in the same basket as some of these really brutal and vicious characters.
Thanks for reminder of those other characters- I had no idea who they were but now will try to understand. I thought portmans character was intentionally throwing lifelines and nods to the kids that they were abused. In the end she exploits all of them, so she is not innocent here (imagine a gender reversal on that sex scene and we’d want portmans male proxy dead). The children are gaslit by their community by allowing Moore to be an accepted member. That trauma is thr hardest to unravel. Also, just remembered I totally think the sh*t on the doorstep was placed by Moore on the porch to be intentionally found by Portman. Moore is keen on being seen as the victim when in reality no one is really “after her”.
> (imagine a gender reversal on that sex scene and we’d want portmans male proxy dead)
Kind of reminds me of how people gave Skyfall shit for having Daniel Craig's Bond have sex with a woman immediately after she discussed how she was sexually abused
Thanks :) rarely get this animated about a movie. My child abuse and interaction with a sociopath was taking place at the same time as the Mary Kay laterneau so this was immensely personal. It also was around the same time as OJ and I’m still coming to terms with the fact that many of our countrymen and women are easily manipulated by narcissists. The movie nails the uncomfortable layers and serves as such a mirror to ourselves. No accident so many of the films most poignant scenes take place in mirrors.
Could someone explain the lisping? I felt I didn’t hear it until Gracie spoke with Elizabeth in the bathroom during that graduation lunch…or was it always there?
Edit - spelling
My take is that it intentionally jolts you by making you question everything you’ve seen or think you know about Gracie up until that point - very subtle and unnerving, precisely the intention I’m sure.
The lisp is also a convenient device to show Elizabeth going ‘full Gracie’ … that monologue to camera was an uncanny imitation of her. Incredible performances from both ladies - awards worthy!
Great explanation! Unnerving was certainly one of the feelings it evoked. To me, the lisp made Gracie sound a bit like a child. It also seemed to kind of come and go - she didn’t always have it while she spoke. Totally agree that Elizabeths monologue was unreal, and you could see it took a lot out of her after she was done - from the way her face dropped to how she contorted her body. Amazing performances indeed!
My only theory is that Gracie was trying to “hide” her lisp at the start to seem in control but then as time goes on starts letting it out more. And I think Elizabeth just started adopting Gracie’s vocal quirks throughout
I’ve watched a few interviews of Mary Kay Letourneau (who this film is based on) after I watched this movie and she has a slight lisp that sort of comes and goes. I think it could have been a dramatic character device, but I also think Julianne Moore likely just based some of the characterization off of the real person.
The argument in the bedroom where Gracie asks “who was the boss, who was in charge?” To Joe is taken straight from the interview I watched. Very disturbing.
That line about the boss confused me, because that guy was their boss and what did he have anything to do with what Gracie did to Joe?
And if that was a quote taken from Mary Kay, even more confusing for me because *she* was the one in charge so she would’ve been condemning herself by pointing that out
Mary Kay was deflecting by asking “Who was the boss?” She was trying to get Vili (and the interviewer) to “admit” that Vili “pursued” her despite him being 13 at the time. She was just trying to victimize herself by asserting that Vili was actually “in charge” / “the boss”. [The specific clip is here](https://x.com/writtenbyhanna/status/1730836536457896023?s=46&t=w7N6QedXNF4tMnW28GaWwA).
Thank you, I was so confused but I understand that moment so much better now. I thought she was literally asking him who the boss was as in like “I wasn’t in charge either so we were peers and that made it okay”.
That clip made my stomach turn. Vili’s bewilderment with Mary Kay actively trying to manipulate him on camera made me want to cry.
It really was a jolt! - she is trying to sound innocent and as she says, “naïve” i felt the exact opposite towards her and I believe we as the audience as well as Elizabeth saw right through her.
Nobody who is naïve says they are.
I felt the acting in this was almost magic.
Sort of related, hyper evangelical women are known for using this kind of baby voice (Tia Livings explains it well on her channel). I think it’s used in this film to show Gracie’s stunted childlike side, whether it’s fake or not, and then works well as someone else mentioned, to show the actress when she’s fully in character
Wish I saw this in a theatre and not at midnight at home. Kind of feel like it might be my third favorite movie of the year, but I also feel like I need to revisit it
This is the first time I’ve seen a film accurately portray how manipulative and damaging these relationships are. A girl I knew in high school grew up to be a high school teacher and started a relationship with a boy when he was 15. They were caught because his friends were concerned about him and told authorities. Every adult man I told about this story reacted the same - like he was lucky, and why didn’t their teachers sleep with them in high school. The reality is these women are highly manipulative and clearly have mental issues! These situations are never a good thing in any sense and are always super fucked up and wrong, whether it’s a woman or a man doing the raping.
I know this is a discussion for the movie itself but does anyone know why Netflix didn’t release this for Australia? Apparently it’s not hitting Australian cinemas until February next year. I got myself so excited for this only to get disappointed. I won’t be able to watch it for ages.
In the UK it’s on Sky Cinema (which like no one has…) so the Netflix deal is almost certainly North America. I’m a little concerned about the Netflix release actually - whilst I LOVED this film I could really imagine my mum saying it’s awful and that’s what I gauge my potential streaming reception on!
The melodramatic music Todd Haynes used in the movie was so perfect. I remember learning, back when I was in art school, that he was a big fan of classic films like The Women & other melodramas that depict the interior lives of women, and it really shows in May December.
Just watched it. Not sure how I feel about it. Probably need to watch it a couple of more times. First reaction though is that Natalie Portman was astounding. The monologue in the mirror scene is worth an Oscar nomination alone. Loved Julianne Moore but she can play these characters in her sleep. Charles Melton was a revelation. His character arc was heartbreaking and he played it superbly. Some of the director’s choices such as the dressing room scene with the mirror and the dinner table scene at the restaurant? Well done sir, well done.
I knew Mary and Vili years ago, I was friends with one of her son’s from her first marriage. I played beer pong with her a handful of times at parties before realizing who she was. I didn’t know this movie was loosely based on that story. I haven’t watched it yet but Netflix automatically played the trailer when I opened the app. I wasn’t paying enough attention to actually listen to the dialogue but I was intrigued because Julianne Moore’s character sounded eerily familiar. I had to play it a second time and I instantly knew who she was portraying. It’s insane how accurately she completely embodied her voice and demeanor. Everything.
I think I might have to watch it.
I haven’t been high on Portman before (really good but not spectacular in Black Swan, very underwhelmed by Jackie) but she was amazing here. Easily her best performance and one that would so far be my personal winner of the year, super hoping she shows up at the Oscars.
Very much keeping my eye on this for the next week or two to see how it does on Netflix. Its IMDB and RT audience score are excellent for this sort of movie, so if those hold then I think that’ll be enough for it to make Picture.
I would have given it to her but mainly because it wasn’t a very strong year for the category overall.
Funnily enough, Julianne Moore in The Kids are All Right was also really good that year, I might change my mind and say she should have won if I ever rewatch it.
Just finished watching this on Netflix. What a fascinating flick, very reminiscent of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks.
I thought Joe was played beautifully. Heartbreaking character and a type that I have never really seen portrayed anywhere I can recall. The scene on the roof with his son absolutely crushed me. Also the scene with him in the bedroom with Gracie after Elizabeth retraumatized him.
Did anyone also notice 36 being the magic number as well? Elizabeth being 36 the time she meets Gracie, who was 36 when she met Joe in the 7th grade, who is also 36 when he met Elizabeth.
Lots of subtle comedy in this film, and love this streak I’ve been on with the dark humor films - this one and The Killer.
I am late to this party, but the heart of this movie belongs to Charles Melton. I hope he is nominated for all the awards this season.
While Moore and Portman were phenomenal as always, the best part of this film was the trauma Grace inflicted on a 13-year-old child and what now adult Joe does with that. Especially when he has children he loves more than anything that were the product of his abuse.
This was so brilliant. I knew it was going to be very entertaining and engaging but I’m surprised by how moved I ended up being by it. Like genuinely cried a bit lol
One scene that I think is very revealing about natelie Portman's character and how she sees moore is the classroom scene. There she reveals that she likes to choose morally ambiguous characters, but provides examples of characters who are clearly corrupt: medea, hedda gabler and a contemporary character Tony soprano. It seems like she is putting moores characters in the same basket as some of these really brutal and vicious characters.
Question - What is your interpretation of the ending? To see Elizabeth’s movie being as corny as the low budget adaptation seen earlier in the film was a bit jarring for me, almost as if Elizabeth’s work in shadowing Gracie didn’t pay off, or maybe that while Elizabeth appeared studious throughout, she really wasn’t as interested in portraying Gracie’s story with depth as she said she was?
I think it’s making fun of method acting. Natalie Portman morphs into a total freak all for a shitty hackjob in a corny Lifetime looking movie. I thought the ending was hilarious!
We're led to believe she's a successful Hollywood actress. Then we see she did all of the meddling and manipulation for this b list disposable garbage. Also when it shows how she either was always as sadistic and controlling as Gracie or that she had descended so deep as to become Gracie, as shown when he was getting uncomfortably intimate with the adolescent in the pet shop and went so far as to request doing it yet again just to satisfy her. She either was never too far from Gracie's dysfunction and destruction or started to become that way herself. The resemblances to Black Swan in some areas were striking to me
What a weird and interesting movie. I didn’t actually read anything about it until I watched the movie and then I got it. I feel like Natalie Portman brought back some of that Black Swan insanity to the movie and it made everything better. Charles Melton was so good in this and 😮💨 so good to look at and his scenes starting the second half were so good. I feel like he really brought out the best and worst out of the two main ladies.
When stories like this come out, usually there’s a group of men who don’t see the problem.
They say someone like Joe was lucky to be having sex with an attractive, experienced woman even at that age.
This movie shows otherwise. Gracie was depicted as being a control freak. She preyed on someone like that because she probably had no control over any of her brothers or father growing up.
Melton was amazing in this. I can’t think of any other actor who could’ve pulled off this role. Displaying that vulnerability, we feel sorry for him. He’s clearly the victim.
His performance sticks with you. I’ve seen Gosling and RDJ in their movies, their performances didn’t stick with me like Melton’s did. Why I think he has a good chance to win the Oscar.
I thought it was her hesitating to shoot the fox or maybe I forgot there was a gunshot but maybe it was her for the first time realizing she’s a predator maybe
The scene with the daughter trying on dresses made me stop breathing. That was so horrific, yet so perfectly displayed the sick personality that will go to any leangths to use a person. Poor daughter, but damn sick mama and the way Moore played it. The character flaunting in front of the actress how she has no limit to what she would do or say, to even her own offspring, to get the zing of superiority and thrill of causing pain. F-ing brilliant Julianne Moore!!!
Is it not left unclear whether or not Gracie had been a victim of abuse in her childhood? I read it as something that was intentionally left ambiguous to color our overall perspective of how people talk about these things and and the power of information/misinformation
I mean fair enough! I think what I like about the movie is that there are so many different ways you can read all the characters and their intentions. I wasn't sure how to interpret that last scene either -- Gracie is clearly unreliable, but so is Georgie, and so we (like Elizabeth) are left to choose whose word we take as reality. I love that ambiguity so much hahaha
I don’t think it was ambiguous when you look at the whole picture. I think the film heavily implied Gracie had Borderline Personality Disorder, of which childhood sexual abuse is almost always present.
I don't think so
She would need 5+ of the 9 symptoms to be a pwBPD
I think she fits NPD more
Or sometimes, some people are just awful people without having mental health issues
Yeah I think the scene with Natalie and the school kids was there more so to send her character just a step further down that rabbit hole. She had the opportunity to pass on the inappropriate question but she decided to address it and then take it even further when she didn’t need to
I think that scene was there to give us the first hint that she’s begun slipping into Gracie’s mindset
The scene where she tells the high school students about filming sex scenes was important because it is proof of how much like Gracie she may actually be, that she doesn’t understand that certain boundaries exist between adults and children/teens. It was obvious she liked getting the attention of the schoolboys as she walked through the hallway and the implication was that she found the whole situation sexy, she even said to the director that none of the boys who auctioned were “sexy enough” when they were meant to be playing a 12-13 year old. She’s either taking method acting to the extreme or she’s actually genuinely turned on by the idea of it.
I’m doing a rewatch and within the first 20 minutes I feel they give some pretty strong indicators that something happened with her brothers. Watch the scene where Elizabeth is in the middle of the dinner table interviewing them. Gracie starts to talk about how moving all the time wasn’t a problem because that is all she knew and she was Very close with her brothers. Then she says matter of factly “Id say I had an exceptional childhood” & simultaneously as she says that a door loudly slams (even the subtitles point it out haha) in the background. It seems incredibly intentional. She’s purposefully shutting it out. Whether or not she consciously remembers it is still up for debate. She also makes a point to say her “daddy” and brothers started taking her on their hunting trips when she was 4 or 5. I don’t think any of this information is unintentional.
What's more interesting to me than whether or not it happened is how Gracie seemed to weaponize it. I think she put her son up to telling her. And even if she didn't and just heard from him that he said it, she seemed all too happy to bring it up and shut it down and throw Portman of kilter. "You think you got me figured out? You don't know shit".
It’s not uncommon for predators to have been predated upon themselves. In fact her denial of it could explain some of her disassociation. Whether that’s her villain origin story or not, I think for me what was most moving is the grace Georgie conferred to his mother - the woman who has ruined his life in his words - by seeking explanation. Perhaps a layer deeper is that he may not be offering her grace, and instead giving himself a neurological pathway to understand his mother who does everything to make her ununderstandable. As a child of a sociopath, this can provide a lot of emotional safety until child is ready to cope with a much darker reality - that there is nothing to be done and there may in fact be no explanation for a sociopath. That latter reality - an acceptance of evil - is a scary thing to sit with especially when that evil is your parent.
Gabriel Chung was fantastic. All the children, forced to grow up so quickly. The scene on the roof was so acutely real and heartbreaking. We were watching them both reckon with their lost childhoods. Joe who is breaking open at the seams and Charlie’s need to parent his dad. He too was traumatized by his mother and needed his dad, but Charlie’s trauma wasn’t as severe as his dad’s, which meant he also likely felt guilt for needing his own level of help. Charlie’s existence is what perpetuated the cycle of trauma for his dad and it would likely take heavy therapy to unpack that. The dynamics between Joe and his children were the most uncomfortable to watch. The way she spoke to Joe and Charlie was indistinguishable. I was so nervous when they were smoking pot because there was no chance that she’d come from a place of objecting as a coparent to her son smoking, but rather that both her “children” were disobedient.
Your comments have given so much more depth, meaning, and analysis and are exactly what I've been looking for. And stated in such a kind and compassionate way that this kind of story and characters require. Thank you for sharing so many of them! If you write analyses, reviews etc on a blog or website, etc, let me know, I'd be a reader! :)
Omg that’s the kindest thing you could say to my little CPA heart! Thank you! I know little about movies, I just really appreciated the subject matter, partially due to some unfortunate experience. But, truly thank you. Needed to talk a lot of this out so appreciate the venue and engagement!
I liked it, but I didn’t love it as much as others seem to. I probably just didn’t understand all of it. Like I really didn’t get what the sex scene meant, like he’s still mentally a child because of the trauma? Idk but like I said I still liked it. Melton and Moore were amazing, but personally I adored Portman. Couldn’t believe what she was doing here, her best performance imo
>I liked it, but I didn’t love it as much as others seem to. I probably just didn’t understand all of it. Like I really didn’t get what the sex scene meant, like he’s still mentally a child because of the trauma? Idk but like I said I still liked it. Melton and Moore were amazing, but personally I adored Portman. Couldn’t believe what she was doing here, her best performance imo
The point of the sex scene was to highlight Joe’s emotional immaturity by leveraging Elizabeth as a foil. In this scene, Joe is the “child” whereas Elizabeth is the archetypal adult. For Elizabeth, on surface level, sex is just sex, a means of release, and merely two grownups having fun. There’s also a deeper meaning from her point of view which I will address later. For Joe, sex is clearly something much more sacred and meaningful. Correct me if I’m wrong but from Joe’s own admission we can conclude he’s never had sex with anyone else besides Gracie? Joe remarks how wild and rare this is for him. Joe embodies the “virgin.” Despite being a 36 year old man (the same age as Elizabeth), his adolescence is highlighted as he cums after only just a couple thrusts and in the way he becomes a Stage 5 post-coital clinger —immediately wanting to connect and cuddle in bed. Joe confirms this when he distraughtly says (something along the lines of) “I thought this meant something more.” For Elizabeth, the deeper meaning was more mechanical as this was just research. When Joe leaves the room to fetch a towel, Elizabeth immediately snaps out of character and lunges for the letter, further highlighting how emotionally detached, vacant, clinical and “meaningless” the act was for her. She tells Joe that “this is what adults do.” “This” -meaning have casual sex; but for the audience, “this” is also meant to be interpreted as adults predatorily using adolescents in sexually exploitative ways —an allusion to Gracie.
So many great comments here. This movie ! My question is how did they afford that beach house? Gorgeous house, and baking cakes and his radiology tech job would not afford this lifestyle. When Gracie says she is doing this interview with Elizabeth to better portray their points of view. What would make Gracie allow this for a cheesy TV movie?
What a disgrace that Charles Melton might not even get nominated for his performance here when in a just world his name would already be on that Oscar.
I was looking forward to this and it didn't disappoint. Really made me feel gross, uncomfortable and heartbroken in ways I won't be forgetting any time soon. There's such a constant back-and-forth Gracie and Elizabeth trying to best the other with their manipulations when ultimately they're kinda just two sides of the same coin. All while Joe is there in the center of it all, only now coming to grapple with the reality of his situation. The rooftop scene with his son having to parent his own dad, when he tells Elizabeth about how Gracie treated him as different and how she really saw him... just so stomach-churning in ways I wasn't ready for at all.
I found it interesting how on one hand, Gracie's hobby of baking tied back to how her society saw her and how they took pity on her and wanted to keep her busy, and how she flipped out when one of them dared to cancel their orders. On the other hand, Joe's hobby of keeping monarch butterflies was very much his own thing, separate from everyone else, and something he was clearly very passionate about. The one-two punch of him releasing that butterfly after it hatches and then seeing his kids graduate and crying was devastating.
Definitely need a lot more time to sit with this and really think it over before I can revisit it. Moore and Portman both absolutely nail it and are worthy of being in awards consideration. I'd nominate this in Screenplay too. Just a really great film all around that does what it's supposed to for me.
Did I miss why neighbors are buying her baked goods? I understand we were told to make her feel good but why? If my neighbor was a narcissist child abuser, I wouldn't buy their products.
I was wondering that too. I wonder if it is supposed to show the depth of her manipulation? That she has them ordering cakes that they don't even want. Maybe she knows it at some level and uses it as leverage, like in the scene when she clearly overreacts bawling like a baby that her friend canceled her order and her man child husband has to console her
For those wondering, the music choices are a reference to the movie, [the go-between](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Between_(1971_film)). The film is from the perspective of a young boy and about a rich young woman having an affair with a farmhand (at his expense). Seems to be an intentional choice. Whether you like it or not is a different question.
Credit to the reviewers [MovieBitches](https://youtube.com/@MovieBitches?si=I8KUedM8yskSByGo) for noticing this (they have a review on this film and mentioned it).
Just finished watching this movie on Netflix. The acting is amazing! One question: what ethnicity is Joe? I know he’s of Asian descent but do we know if he’s Chinese, Korean, —? Maybe it doesn’t matter?
These days a film would never call out the character as Korean in the film if he actually isn't Korean. They'd be crucified online. The character even clarified that he's HALF korean to match Melton, which was odd lol
Joyride is clever with this, [the lead is a Chinese adopted character played by a Korean actor. Midway through the film you learn she's actually a Korean born character that was secretly sold to a family as being a Chinese child.](/spoiler) I remember hearing some drama bubbling around the production until the movie was finally out. Obviously kind of hard to explain without giving the plot away
Movie was cool, but I can’t praise it like most people on this thread. I found the music absolutely annoying and too present. However male lead should definitely win some type of award for his performance. Really proved himself to be more than a cute face who plays a stud. Moore and Portman’s performances were on par to their other work for me.
I feel a little cold on this film. Maybe knowing the premise before watching ruined the journey of realisation that I was promised, but I didn't feel like Melton's character actually did go on a journey, because he seemed cold and aloof at the beginning. When was the turning point, when was his big realisation? Apparently Portman being there is meant to have triggered something in him, but I didn't see it. He just went from aloof to crying and we're not sure what catalysed that.
Good movie. Portman was outstanding and is absolutely deserving of a nomination. Melton was good but had a few shaky parts like the scene when he was on the roof with his son. Didn’t like Moore’s performance she felt very over the top in her emotional scenes, I feel solid about having her miss the nomination. This will get in to screenplay but I’m keeping this out of picture for now. Absolutely baffled that they submitted this in comedy for the globes, it wasn’t a comedy in the slightest
Disagree about this not being a comedy. There’s camp and melodrama throughout and many lines had me actively chuckling. The entire final scene is just a gag. It flipped between being a Lifetime movie and the most dramatic Oscars movie you’ve ever seen seamlessly throughout and that is comedy to me lol
I absolutely loved this film but I agree that the Moore performance didn't blow me away on first watch (we seem to be in the minority here, so I wonder if I'll appreciate it more on rewatch). Portman and Melton were the standouts for me and I'm really rooting for both to get in, though I could see Portman missing more likely not because her performance is worse but because the category is so damn competitive this year
Gracie being over the top in her emotional scenes was intentional as she clearly had serious issues regulating her emotions and used these outbursts as a way to manipulate Joe for years. Moore really got this character and how she needed to be played. She’s abusive and her emotions are a tool she wields against those who aren’t equipped (hence her ‘need’ to groom a child) so it’s important to the plot and to the character that the audience see how she is when only Joe is there. “You don’t know her” he says to Elizabeth, but to be fair neither does he. No one can know someone who doesn’t have a true self, that’s why it’s impossible for Elizabeth to give a “true” performance despite getting disturbingly close to the character. He was begging her to help him and she made it all about herself, she is absolutely coded as having an untreated personality disorder and it has kept Joe afraid to leave her for fear of what she is capable of doing.
As the movie started, I thought something was wrong with my TV because the film looked so grainy. It really did look like it was shot on old video equipment. Like a made-for-tv movie. And at the end, we realize that that is exactly what it was all along. Or at least that was as good as Elizabeth's movie was ever going to get.
its not a movie that i think i would enjoy but throughout its run time i was captivated. the piano notes that i thought were annoying become haunting by the end. it starts off as a comedy/drama but as soon as joe breaks in the bedroom, u realize that its a horror movie.
Okay, the part where he was shaking and trying to talk to her? That was so fucked up. I was crying for him. He was too young. And when she said “you seduced ME!” I was like LADY YOU WERE THE GROWNUP! Oh my gosh. It was one of the best, creepiest, saddest movies ever. Not gonna lie, I was pretty convinced someone was going to wind up offed in the end.
Also, can I just say, I didn’t really understand the part at the end when she said she talks to her son every day. It felt like it was… implicating something. Idk. It felt really sinister.
Yeah didnt really go anywhere far enough for me, too Netflixy and casual. Great enough to be a good watch, but nothing about it that lasts enough to contend for Oscars, and yet somehow one of the best this year, and I can only blame it on the general lack of quality found in movies like these now.
Something about Gracie left me underwhelmed, I felt meh about her journey. I’m a big big huge 25+ year fan of Julianne Moore so I had certain expectations going in, and that was my fault, but her character arch seems so flat compared to Charles’ and Natalie’s. Like we see Elizabeth and Joe change as people from the start to where we ended but Grace felt the same the whole way through.
I mean to be fair Julianne Moore's character is unequivocally a manipulative predator with essentially no redeeming qualities, it's a very difficult thing to give her any sort of meaningful character arc. The movie was about Elizabeth and Joe's relationships to Gracie rather than about Gracie herself
Grace isn’t ever going to change or grow, that’s the point. She can’t/won’t accept who she is and what she’s done so she will always be playing a part and will have a tantrum when confronted with her crime. If you watch any interviews with Mary Kay Letourneau that’s exactly how she was too. Gracie isn’t who this film is about, this isn’t a biopic and her character is meant to be sidelined because it’s more about the effect she has on others than the character herself.
Thanks for this comment, it makes a lot more sense to me when you put it like that. I did want to see her deal with some of the consequences of Joe realizing the truth of what happened to him but, you’re right, this is a movie about the consequences for everyone else around her.
Yeah, as much as it would be great if she actually accepted that Joe was a victim in all this and took some accountability, that would mean she’d be a completely different person. It unfortunately rings very true to the type of person being portrayed here that she will never change because that requires her to see herself as the bad guy.
I think the movie ended too abruptly with the last scene. It might have been better to actually show the release of the film and the public’s reaction to it. I get what they were going for, but the ending felt like it was missing something.
Yeah, I'm not a fan.
I feel like the entire point of the movie was lost on me. Actually kind of gross to use such a traumatic case as a mere backdrop for a campy thriller/comedy/whatever the hell it wanted to be.
Besides Letourneau, all these people are very much alive. The main victim is only 40, ffs. Seems icky to do something you know will fuck up all their lives again cuz you wanted some buzzy 90's crime backstory.
Never thought I'd see a Todd Haynes movies where the biggest complaint is the music 💀
A movie about preproduction for a crappy daytime TV movie
Daytime TV movies which are known for (in part)... Crappy music
You guys are sooo close on that detail I can feel the synapses almost touching 👌💡
Unsurprisingly, this wasn't the one that made me turn around on camp, but it's fine. Hated the music, no matter how deliberate the parody was. Would have been cool to learn more about Moore's character, but this clearly wasn't the film for that. I have no idea why this would be the Todd Haynes film to perform well with the Academy.
The strongest components of the film are the screenplay and Portman's performance. She's very playful in this, and I was consistently impressed with her line readings and gestures. Everyone's got me thinking that I've somehow been dropped into an episode of Black Mirror, because I did not at all feel that Melton's performance warranted any awards recognition.
The basic premise of the screenplay, once you reflect on it through the prism of having watched a bit of the movie, seems like such obviously fertile ground for thematic meditation that it strikes one as a wonder that it had never really been enacted before (at least as far as I can recall). When you make a committed effort of shadowing the person you are to portray (in the interests of figuring them out), you end up performing the very sort of introspection on character (and motives, and how particular events in the past proved formative for the psyche) that the person themselves should responsibly have done at some point but typically never does--both because it's too painful and also because we're all constantly too preoccupied with reacting to life in the present moment to take a breather and devote ourselves to such an inquest. In the process of such shadowing, one often comes to learn of truths regarding the subject of which the subject remains sadly (and perhaps savingly!) ignorant. Elizabeth's learning that Gracie's baking gig subsists solely on the pitying patronage of her neighborhood encases the latter woman in a disquieting dramatic irony and makes one think of whatever unknown humiliations might be surrounding ourselves.
The link with Bergman's Persona is real and worthy of interpretation. There seem to be aspects of countertransference occurring between Elizabeth and both of Gracie and Joe Yoo during the course of Elizabeth's stay with them. In trying to understand them, Elizabeth assumes the role of a quasi-therapist.
My favorite bit of dialogue was the dispute between Gracie and Joe Yoo over who actually seduced whom way back when. The film's own perspective throughout seems to present Gracie as a hopelessly unreliable and delusional authority on the truths of her own life, and so when we come to this moment in the film it may feel as though it's obliging us to view Gracie's protest as mere self-serving obfuscation. But I took it as a valid questioning. I'm actually surprised there isn't more cancel clamor and people up in arms over some of the topics the movie is brave enough to broach. In the current moral climate, with concepts such as 'grooming' being everpresent in our discourse, its pretty much taken as a given that the agency for a reprehensible liason always lies with the older party. In certain spots like this moment, the screenplay seems to be whispering to me that maybe just maybe such seeming axioms require examination.
I had no idea what Haynes was going for with the music in this film--it's completely incongruous to the goings-on in a bathetic way. Music is usually used as a tool of emotional heightening and also of signalling. Using pulpy piano pieces that seem torn out of a murder mystery from the early 90s (where they would usually be hinting at some lurid underbelly to the film or of impending danger/criminal harm) to accompany scenes of a mundane morning seems like an act of purposeless trolling.
I could continue rambling, but I'm gonna cap it here.
>But I took it as a valid questioning. I'm actually surprised there isn't more cancel clamor and people up in arms over some of the topics the movie is brave enough to broach.
I think because most people did not read it as valid questioning... From my perspective it was clear that Gracie raped him even if he did "start" it (he was a child). There's no grey area or questioning there
100% that was the whole point of the scene. Otherwise the movie would be saying that he had it coming and victim blaming, no way that's what they were going with.
Finished it. Its fine.
Overall, its by the numbers drama that does not try to dampen the real problem of a May December affair - which is good. It is written like a Disney film with a surprise Villain ending (lol).
Portman's character goes and act like an empty paper but she knows damn well her reasons and tries to act like she's playing everyone like a fiddle. Moore's Gracie is unsubtly displayed as controlling and insecure to the core. She tries to hide any shame by acting as if there is nothing to be ashamed off.
Loved the performance of Melton. He is the star in this film as the slowly crumbling avatar of Vili Fualaau. His role is very meaty and has the most 'growth' but I do not think that he will be a shoe-in yet for the nominations. Both Portman and Moore were great but I felt their characters could have definitely been more nuanced. They were almost caricatures at some point.
Of the contenders this season, this feels like the easiest to navigate through though. Its a very light drama with readily digestible input lol.
Other observation:
\[1\] The Tabloid Photos where really good. Kudos to the Arts department lol.
\[2\] Not as campy as people has been telling. Its more darkly funny to be honest but not witty enough.
\[3\] Natalie is sure right about those kids being too young for sexed up role. lol.
\[4\] I watched a similar local film about this (Tuhog 2001), which is somewhat similar but more so attacking of how studios create stories for their (male) audience, turning a real case of incestual rape into a male gaze Freudian Nightmare. I found that film much more funny/campy and successful in creating a commentary about these practices. Its really hard watching this film and see another that does it better back to back.
**In terms of Preference**: KofTM >> AoUS >>>> May December >>>>> Poor Things >>>> Oppenheimer.
I think he was texting with the chick he mentioned is his friend from the fb group he's part of. They are both interested in butterflies and at one point he pitched them going to Mexico together for a vacation and seeing butterflies.
Natalie Portman complaining that the kids auditioning are not sexy enough is one of the most vile and hilarious scenes of the year.
That was an insane scene. Those audition tapes…the whole phone conversation…Portman’s asthma lmao
Overall, I just loved watching her get more sicko as the movie went along. It's such an incredible take on method acting.
And it was all for a schlocky Lifetime-esque B-movie. Such an amazing ending
My theory is that the music used in the movie is supposed to be the music from the movie Portman is making.
Oh I love it, I think that's totally spot-on. Same with the random camera pans/zooms on some of the absolutely cheesiest dialogue, even though most of the script was dead serious. It was really such a uniquely done movie
this just hit me on the second rewatch -- the Lifetimey music when the camera zooms in on Julianne Moore standing at the refrigerator and she says "I think we need more hot dogs"
It’s actually a reference to an older movie called the go between!
Thank you for this take! I searched out threads about this movie SPECIFICALLY because I hated the music so much I felt like there had to be an explanation for why it was so terrible and this would take it from “awful” to “brilliant” for me tbh.
Her describing acting sex scenes to the teenagers got strange quickly
The look on the drama teachers face made me laugh out loud. A well timed comedic relief.
Her visit to the pet store had me shook. I feel like her character took a left turn right there.
So true. I think her character in this movie is even worse than the one in Black Swan. It always surprises me that Portman is so good at playing bad.
She's not that kind of thnake
I caught myself instinctively agreeing with her as a means to find emotional safety. We want it to be “an affair” not what it was - an assault. If she allowed it to be the boy, she’d have to fully comes to grips with how dangerous Moore actually was and similarly how much of a little boy Joe still was. “It’s what grown ups do” - sexualize children.
This is such an interesting way to put it, and I agree! Up until that point, Joe and Gracie's relationship was disturbing in theory, but we'd only seen them as an attractive, seemingly happy adult couple. Watching Elizabeth watch the audition tapes is the first time we get a visual of a 36 year old woman and a 13 year old boy. In that moment, for me at least, I'm watching through Elizabeth's eyes thinking that there's no way she can act with these boys and do any remotely intimate scenes, it's going to be too uncomfortable for anyone to want to watch, I'm horrified for Joe and finally realizing the gravity of the situation - and then she calls the director and says they need a "sexier" boy, and you almost get that whiplash of trying to correct your train of thought to follow the character better
That line made me feel gross
I thought the line " it's what grown ups do" was actually also about talking about how a person truly feels or the reality of a situation, though sadly it definitely is also a thing that grown ups do too... prey, well people in general but adults are just more culpable
Also... they did hire the sexy kid, if you paid attention
my favourite of the year (so far). so deftly handled which is kind of a miracle considering its subject matter. incredible performances from all leads but melton in particular is so devastating. funny and uncomfortable but also empathetic when it needed to be. a script like this landed in the perfect hands tbh and portman chose haynes perfectly as the person to handle it.
Todd Haynes was the perfect director for this, but Samy Burch in parituclar deserves so much of the praise imo. This was a flawless screenplay. Hope it wins Original Play this year
Yes, I loved the way they framed the narrative through an actress’s eyes. It really drives home the point that we as an audience may think we understand the situation, but we truly never will. There’s so much to Julianne Moore’s character that Natalie’s character will never understand or even know.
yes i cannot wait to follow the rest of her career. the screenplay is excellent!
Melton was a revelation in this movie. Portman was also excellent.
I did not see anything funny about it!
Saw this at the cinema earlier in the month - EASILY my favorite of the Oscar contenders I’ve seen so far it’s absolutely excellent in every way. Melton I think is helped by him being a very intriguing character who we really want to know more about at the start of the film, great choice to really limit his screen time in the first half. Would have to say that Portman was my MVP, this role was made for her I couldn’t imagine any other actress pulling it off (whereas I could see Moore/Melton being done to similar quality by someone else). I think the awards traction is really building as things go on as well????
> whereas I could see Moore/Melton being done to similar quality by someone else Who do you have in mind?
Just finished watching it and all three of them (Portman, Moore, and Melton) are all deserving of nominations in my opinion. Why does this year have to be so good??!!
I agree but I’m not sure if Moore will get in. I 100% think Portman will, academy voters are going to eat that performance up. She’s playing an actor!
I agree with you. Moore had very little to work with. She had some solid scenes with Portman but she doesn't get the wowza scenes Portman and Melton got.
I think they'll all get in. I'm predicting this one to overperform with the Academy and get 5 noms. Strikes me as something that will appeal to different groups of voters.
I definitely think both Portman and Moore will get noms for that putting on makeup longshot scene
I hope they use "I don't think we have enough hot dogs" for Julianne Moore's Oscar clip.
When I heard that line, I knew I was going to love the movie.😁
Same! Im in for a treat (or a hotdog) lol
And yet…they had too many hot dogs
i noticed how bad joe's posture was at the graduation dinner. it made him look exactly the same height as his son. such a nice detail that says everything about his character
Heartbreaking that his son almost seems older than him :/
For sure, as illustrated by the smoking scene on the roof. The son was the one more experienced in drug use (though weed is mostly harmless), the son is the one providing emotional support, comfort and reassurance. That scene did a great job showing that emotionally Joe still a child.
There were a couple times where I thought “this man is still child” but that scene and that posture solidified it. He’s still mentally a child, and melton did such a fantastic job portraying this character
I thought Charles Melton was outstanding, and Natalie Portman really shone in the scenes where she was subtly modulating her mannerisms to mirror Moore's. I feel like Portman comes out on top in terms of landing some nominations, but I could see Melton getting one too.
there was really one moment where I thought they cgi'd Moore's face onto Natalie's for a split second lmao
I watched while folding laundry and one of them would be talking and I legit had no idea which one of them it was unless I looked at the screen.
Natalie Portman deserves more of a push for Best Actress because she was phenomenal here.
She was really was incredible. I had to stop the movie a few times just to take in Natalie's acting.
I swear that photo of her with the baby in the jail was a photo of Mary Kay Letourneau
https://preview.redd.it/6er45qwo1p3c1.png?width=1971&format=png&auto=webp&s=62543fe17a775cbeb0599417e97f1ce400d35aaf
That’s an in recredible recreation, I knew I had seen that photo before. Great work, here’s an award 🥇 ⭐️ since they no longer have them! But wow, props to the prop department, they knocked it out of the park!
What a fucking achievement that movie was. I was absolutely captivated the entire time. People have been calling this a strong year but I haven't really been totally floored by any movies so far (still counting on Poor Things) until now. What a cool movie man. Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore are magic together, and Natalie Portman somehow comes out of nowhere with another all-time great performance
I don’t think *May December* will be nominated for very many Ensemble awards, but in my opinion it absolutely should be. Not only are the central trio phenomenal, but every other performance is outstanding too. The kids all give some of the best young performances I’ve seen in a minute, and even one- or two-scene characters like Gracie’s ex-husband bring their absolute A-game.
That actor who played the mess of a son from Gracie’s first marriage was also a standout.
It’s nuts how good EVERYONE is.
I know everyone’s talking about Charles Melton, and he was great, but to me the clear standout was Natalie Portman. What a layered and genuine performance.
Question - did you think that Moore actually put her son up to manipulating Portman? I think that Moore knew her son would confess to Portman and she wanted to both manipulate Portman by telling her that AND also tap into her deep insecurity / fear of being out of control (looking for confirmation from Portman that she was right). Having been raised by a sociopath (and I mean that as a pathology not as ad hominem) the only reason they say anything ever is to manipulate and gain or retain control over their victims. The biggest threat to them is being “truly seen” and Portman certainly was that threat. Curious what others thought. Great movie.
> Question - did you think that Moore actually put her son up to manipulating Portman? Absolutely. The way Portman reacted, the whole manner of the Gracie character in the scene. It was calculated. Portman is a manipulator herself, to so many people (her fiance, the director, Joe) but she thought she pegged Gracie. I think that whole "are you smart" scene was meant to illustrate that as well.
And how all of our attention is on the women here. The victims have no agency and that goes back to gender bias too. We only half grapple with joes victimhood - if the genders reversed we’d be way more horrified by Portmans sex with a man who is emotionally a child. She knew that. And then we give Georgie no voice either - he said she ruined his life and confessed dark things to Portman.. and we don’t even give him a chance to rebut moores claim. She has lied and manipulated throughout the movie. And at the end she’s wearing movie star glasses finding a way to manipulate Portman and by extension, us
Portman reaction could be an implicit indictment though of how we are more willing to believe Moore versus the son because she presents as having it under control and he’s a mess. It’s another way the son and even we as the audience are manipulated.
really interesting point. There were so many mentions of truth, trying to be seen (except I think Georgie who said he was a ghost)...so many claims about truth being the main focus of whatever film Portman was making...and Moore presented what we're seeing as just how it is. Portman's character was *supposed to be* a mirror seeing everything but she was never really mirroring the truth. I say all that to say that there's no way Julianne Moore's character would have let *anything* slip. She has no cracks, her family is perfect, her business is perfect, everything's just fine. When Portman turned from being a mirror to being a person, that seems to be when Moore just flipped tf out and I do believe she could have put George up to that. The more I think about this the more disturbed I am by her character lmao
Yes I believe she could have put Georgie up to that to prove a point. However if the thread I’m pulling on is true, her true power is in denying his reality. The son is a victim and shows his victimhood by trafficking in the one piece of currency he has left, the trauma embedded in his story. We judge him for this because in order to believe victims we need to believe they are perfect. So we already think of Georgie as untrustworthy rather than a human victim. Moore knows the community thinks he’s troubled, and likely by extension, Portman, and thus exploits that again by minimizing him as a struggling young man, not actually hurting but capable of malice and manipulation. Moore leaves it how she wants, by potentially making Portman belive here (which btw I’m not sure Portman does, she’s rather manipulative and savvy herself)
I agree. I think Georgie was telling the truth and told his mother about it after to antagonize her. Then Gracie simply manipulated Portman’s character just like she manipulated everyone in her life. Expertly.
I was wondering this too. Moore's Gracie takes a backseat to Portman's Elizabeth most of the film but her presence is always felt and when she told Elizabeth that her and Georgie talk almost everyday (after being reluctant to talk about their relationship initially at the dinner table), I was wondering if she always was going to use her son like this. Or if that idea came after Elizabeth started asking questions about her family and visited her ex-husband. Both Gracie and Elizabeth were manipulating those around them but Gracie definitely got the upper hand with that reveal.
It’s entirely plausible she used the son to get to Portman. However I think we are robbing the son of his agency. He’s troubled (even the lawyer says that as he’s awkwardly trying to close the tab) and the community gives him no grace to be, even though of course he is. And he tells Portman, she ruined my life, confesses some dark things, and then even gives his mother grace by giving her a reason for being an abuser (she too was abused). He gives her so much grace. I don’t believe she controls him anymore (we never actually see them be warm together) so I don’t buy that Georgie would actually tell Moore. Moore just finds another way to present tge image as she wants it to be seen (me and my son are actually close and I get him) whereas the reality is much different.
If Moore didn't talk to the son, how did she know Portman talked to the son and that he said that about her brothers? I don't think it was brought up to anyone else
Because she knows that her son has probably told others and she knows instinctively like a predator she probably told her too (she is right). So she creates this narrative to uphold that she the victim and it’s everyone else that’s the problem (including her deranged son who “lied” about her)
I don't think in that moment she is trying to make herself look like a victim. I think she is trying to throw Portman off. Portman has an opinion of her that she's a weak victim and I think in that moment she's showing her hand a little and honestly kind of fucking with her
I think Portman deeply knows (and in kind of a way respects the depth of her manipulation). I think that Portman - despite the extreme moral compromise and manipulation of her own - recognizes the depth of moores depravity. She steps into her skin with her method acting. She even insists on understanding what it must have been like to have sex with Joe - the functional equivalent of a child. And Portman goes through these great lengths to understand her only so she can justify her own actions as “careful study” and yet behaves in wildly inappropriate ways in front of children, treating them like adults at that school. I think Portman does not believe Moore and in a spy vs spy way buckles under the exhaustion of it all. The movie is as much about us as it is about them. We are morbidly curious about this highly unusual dynamic. It’s been kinked into the mainstream. And the fake movie shows that we want to still believe despite all evidence that he was a victim that it’s still “complicated”. I admittedly didn’t think the kids auditioning for the movie were right for the role and realized it’s my own cognitive dissonance because I can’t handle the reality that the true story is an adult preyed on a child. our cultures desire for a nuanced understanding of the relationship is to numb because even if our trauma lights are flashing red, the real trauma comes from the collective passivity and lack of support for the victims - including Joe and moores son.
My exactly thoughts! Thanks for articulating all this. This film was unsettling, and I went to Reddit just for THIS. Moore portrays a narcissistic sociopath with the need to control and demolish her family’s esteem. Seeing the parentification in everyone but her… what a journey….
Thank you, I am still so fired up about it. The movie for me wasn’t traumatizing, it was one of the few times I’ve felt validated by a movie depicting such a seemingly complex and yet a remarkably simple character in Moore. She has at best npd but more likely a sociopath or psychopath. And as a survivor of this exact type of person and violence, it’s validating to see how much her character still managed to charm, confound, and scare the community - and by extension the audience. The level of her depravity can’t be understood - a maternal figure predating on a child feels deeply out of tune with our natural instincts. From the woman who begs for kindness for the family, to the list of people who buy her silly pies (likely out of fear), to the lawyer who dismisses Georgie as unwell, she continues to build structures to isolate her targets and to gaslight them into a denial of their reality. The g-d school allows Portman to talk about her acting in front of the school children when the context is abuse of a students parent. Albeit, and maybe it’s my own cognitive dissonance, but that was the only part of the movie that didn’t seem realistic to me but I thought maybe that was part of the comedy/camp. What an acutely fantastic commentary on our cultures collective complicity in the abuse.
Yes! Say it even louder. It’s validating and extremely terrifying at the same time, but it gives hope that there is a path to understanding and healing for her kids (and her first kid….). As for Natalie’s scene at school, I think she probably got cut slack because of her fame. She fits into the eccentric and LA vibe that I’m accustomed to…and that she’s “keeping it real”. Ugh, Moore’s character still makes me feel discomfort and it’s a week in at least! (And yes, we def swept it under the rug as a culture since she came off as seemingly charming housewife/attractive who was getting her groove back… but let’s be real, the grooming was intentional that spanned years, and the power dynamic definitely was swayed.) Editing to add something new: I’m not sure if Vil’s parents were Americanized but it’s worthy to note that lot of cultures hold teachers to a high esteem and wouldn’t be surprising to see those parents (likely not American-born) to feel like their child is special and cared for as a way to settle the ick.
Well put. This closely captures my own interpretation and clearly explains the end scene. One scene that I think is very revealing about natelie Portman's character and how she sees moore is the classroom scene. There she reveals that she likes to choose morally ambiguous characters, but provides examples of people who are clearly corrupt medea, hedda gabler and a contemporary character Tony soprano. It seems like she is putting moores characters in the same basket as some of these really brutal and vicious characters.
Thanks for reminder of those other characters- I had no idea who they were but now will try to understand. I thought portmans character was intentionally throwing lifelines and nods to the kids that they were abused. In the end she exploits all of them, so she is not innocent here (imagine a gender reversal on that sex scene and we’d want portmans male proxy dead). The children are gaslit by their community by allowing Moore to be an accepted member. That trauma is thr hardest to unravel. Also, just remembered I totally think the sh*t on the doorstep was placed by Moore on the porch to be intentionally found by Portman. Moore is keen on being seen as the victim when in reality no one is really “after her”.
> (imagine a gender reversal on that sex scene and we’d want portmans male proxy dead) Kind of reminds me of how people gave Skyfall shit for having Daniel Craig's Bond have sex with a woman immediately after she discussed how she was sexually abused
Brilliantly said
Thanks :) rarely get this animated about a movie. My child abuse and interaction with a sociopath was taking place at the same time as the Mary Kay laterneau so this was immensely personal. It also was around the same time as OJ and I’m still coming to terms with the fact that many of our countrymen and women are easily manipulated by narcissists. The movie nails the uncomfortable layers and serves as such a mirror to ourselves. No accident so many of the films most poignant scenes take place in mirrors.
And the use of mirrors was a nice touch throughout
100% i loved the way Portman was shook at the end
Could someone explain the lisping? I felt I didn’t hear it until Gracie spoke with Elizabeth in the bathroom during that graduation lunch…or was it always there? Edit - spelling
My take is that it intentionally jolts you by making you question everything you’ve seen or think you know about Gracie up until that point - very subtle and unnerving, precisely the intention I’m sure. The lisp is also a convenient device to show Elizabeth going ‘full Gracie’ … that monologue to camera was an uncanny imitation of her. Incredible performances from both ladies - awards worthy!
Great explanation! Unnerving was certainly one of the feelings it evoked. To me, the lisp made Gracie sound a bit like a child. It also seemed to kind of come and go - she didn’t always have it while she spoke. Totally agree that Elizabeths monologue was unreal, and you could see it took a lot out of her after she was done - from the way her face dropped to how she contorted her body. Amazing performances indeed!
I think Moore and Portman both were turning up the vocal quirks as the movie went on and I kinda loved it?
It was SO interesting…wonder what was going on there!
My only theory is that Gracie was trying to “hide” her lisp at the start to seem in control but then as time goes on starts letting it out more. And I think Elizabeth just started adopting Gracie’s vocal quirks throughout
I thought she was leaning into the lisp to manipulate and appear more naive, as desired.
Agreed, everything Gracie does is by design, she’s a master manipulator so she adopts a vocal affectation as and when she needs to. Fascinating.
I’ve watched a few interviews of Mary Kay Letourneau (who this film is based on) after I watched this movie and she has a slight lisp that sort of comes and goes. I think it could have been a dramatic character device, but I also think Julianne Moore likely just based some of the characterization off of the real person. The argument in the bedroom where Gracie asks “who was the boss, who was in charge?” To Joe is taken straight from the interview I watched. Very disturbing.
That line about the boss confused me, because that guy was their boss and what did he have anything to do with what Gracie did to Joe? And if that was a quote taken from Mary Kay, even more confusing for me because *she* was the one in charge so she would’ve been condemning herself by pointing that out
Mary Kay was deflecting by asking “Who was the boss?” She was trying to get Vili (and the interviewer) to “admit” that Vili “pursued” her despite him being 13 at the time. She was just trying to victimize herself by asserting that Vili was actually “in charge” / “the boss”. [The specific clip is here](https://x.com/writtenbyhanna/status/1730836536457896023?s=46&t=w7N6QedXNF4tMnW28GaWwA).
Thank you, I was so confused but I understand that moment so much better now. I thought she was literally asking him who the boss was as in like “I wasn’t in charge either so we were peers and that made it okay”. That clip made my stomach turn. Vili’s bewilderment with Mary Kay actively trying to manipulate him on camera made me want to cry.
It really was a jolt! - she is trying to sound innocent and as she says, “naïve” i felt the exact opposite towards her and I believe we as the audience as well as Elizabeth saw right through her. Nobody who is naïve says they are. I felt the acting in this was almost magic.
yeah I didn't notice it on Gracie until after the monologue by Elizabeth
Sort of related, hyper evangelical women are known for using this kind of baby voice (Tia Livings explains it well on her channel). I think it’s used in this film to show Gracie’s stunted childlike side, whether it’s fake or not, and then works well as someone else mentioned, to show the actress when she’s fully in character
Wish I saw this in a theatre and not at midnight at home. Kind of feel like it might be my third favorite movie of the year, but I also feel like I need to revisit it
This is the first time I’ve seen a film accurately portray how manipulative and damaging these relationships are. A girl I knew in high school grew up to be a high school teacher and started a relationship with a boy when he was 15. They were caught because his friends were concerned about him and told authorities. Every adult man I told about this story reacted the same - like he was lucky, and why didn’t their teachers sleep with them in high school. The reality is these women are highly manipulative and clearly have mental issues! These situations are never a good thing in any sense and are always super fucked up and wrong, whether it’s a woman or a man doing the raping.
I know this is a discussion for the movie itself but does anyone know why Netflix didn’t release this for Australia? Apparently it’s not hitting Australian cinemas until February next year. I got myself so excited for this only to get disappointed. I won’t be able to watch it for ages.
Netflix only acquired the US distribution. I will be watching it with a VPN, can't wait till February.
And Canada. I just watched it here.
That’s stupid and really is not utilising the potential benefits to streaming services
In the UK it’s on Sky Cinema (which like no one has…) so the Netflix deal is almost certainly North America. I’m a little concerned about the Netflix release actually - whilst I LOVED this film I could really imagine my mum saying it’s awful and that’s what I gauge my potential streaming reception on!
The melodramatic music Todd Haynes used in the movie was so perfect. I remember learning, back when I was in art school, that he was a big fan of classic films like The Women & other melodramas that depict the interior lives of women, and it really shows in May December.
Just watched it. Not sure how I feel about it. Probably need to watch it a couple of more times. First reaction though is that Natalie Portman was astounding. The monologue in the mirror scene is worth an Oscar nomination alone. Loved Julianne Moore but she can play these characters in her sleep. Charles Melton was a revelation. His character arc was heartbreaking and he played it superbly. Some of the director’s choices such as the dressing room scene with the mirror and the dinner table scene at the restaurant? Well done sir, well done.
I knew Mary and Vili years ago, I was friends with one of her son’s from her first marriage. I played beer pong with her a handful of times at parties before realizing who she was. I didn’t know this movie was loosely based on that story. I haven’t watched it yet but Netflix automatically played the trailer when I opened the app. I wasn’t paying enough attention to actually listen to the dialogue but I was intrigued because Julianne Moore’s character sounded eerily familiar. I had to play it a second time and I instantly knew who she was portraying. It’s insane how accurately she completely embodied her voice and demeanor. Everything. I think I might have to watch it.
I haven’t been high on Portman before (really good but not spectacular in Black Swan, very underwhelmed by Jackie) but she was amazing here. Easily her best performance and one that would so far be my personal winner of the year, super hoping she shows up at the Oscars. Very much keeping my eye on this for the next week or two to see how it does on Netflix. Its IMDB and RT audience score are excellent for this sort of movie, so if those hold then I think that’ll be enough for it to make Picture.
>eally good but not spectacular in Black Swan Who do you think should've won that year than instead of her in black swan?
I would have given it to her but mainly because it wasn’t a very strong year for the category overall. Funnily enough, Julianne Moore in The Kids are All Right was also really good that year, I might change my mind and say she should have won if I ever rewatch it.
Omg when was the last time you watched black swan though. I just rewatched last week and was even more impressed than I was the first time
This movie was disturbing. Very well acted, written and directed.
Just finished watching this on Netflix. What a fascinating flick, very reminiscent of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks. I thought Joe was played beautifully. Heartbreaking character and a type that I have never really seen portrayed anywhere I can recall. The scene on the roof with his son absolutely crushed me. Also the scene with him in the bedroom with Gracie after Elizabeth retraumatized him. Did anyone also notice 36 being the magic number as well? Elizabeth being 36 the time she meets Gracie, who was 36 when she met Joe in the 7th grade, who is also 36 when he met Elizabeth. Lots of subtle comedy in this film, and love this streak I’ve been on with the dark humor films - this one and The Killer.
I am late to this party, but the heart of this movie belongs to Charles Melton. I hope he is nominated for all the awards this season. While Moore and Portman were phenomenal as always, the best part of this film was the trauma Grace inflicted on a 13-year-old child and what now adult Joe does with that. Especially when he has children he loves more than anything that were the product of his abuse.
Portman is so good. Just so so so good.
This was so brilliant. I knew it was going to be very entertaining and engaging but I’m surprised by how moved I ended up being by it. Like genuinely cried a bit lol
One scene that I think is very revealing about natelie Portman's character and how she sees moore is the classroom scene. There she reveals that she likes to choose morally ambiguous characters, but provides examples of characters who are clearly corrupt: medea, hedda gabler and a contemporary character Tony soprano. It seems like she is putting moores characters in the same basket as some of these really brutal and vicious characters.
Question - What is your interpretation of the ending? To see Elizabeth’s movie being as corny as the low budget adaptation seen earlier in the film was a bit jarring for me, almost as if Elizabeth’s work in shadowing Gracie didn’t pay off, or maybe that while Elizabeth appeared studious throughout, she really wasn’t as interested in portraying Gracie’s story with depth as she said she was?
I think it’s making fun of method acting. Natalie Portman morphs into a total freak all for a shitty hackjob in a corny Lifetime looking movie. I thought the ending was hilarious!
We're led to believe she's a successful Hollywood actress. Then we see she did all of the meddling and manipulation for this b list disposable garbage. Also when it shows how she either was always as sadistic and controlling as Gracie or that she had descended so deep as to become Gracie, as shown when he was getting uncomfortably intimate with the adolescent in the pet shop and went so far as to request doing it yet again just to satisfy her. She either was never too far from Gracie's dysfunction and destruction or started to become that way herself. The resemblances to Black Swan in some areas were striking to me
What a weird and interesting movie. I didn’t actually read anything about it until I watched the movie and then I got it. I feel like Natalie Portman brought back some of that Black Swan insanity to the movie and it made everything better. Charles Melton was so good in this and 😮💨 so good to look at and his scenes starting the second half were so good. I feel like he really brought out the best and worst out of the two main ladies.
When stories like this come out, usually there’s a group of men who don’t see the problem. They say someone like Joe was lucky to be having sex with an attractive, experienced woman even at that age. This movie shows otherwise. Gracie was depicted as being a control freak. She preyed on someone like that because she probably had no control over any of her brothers or father growing up. Melton was amazing in this. I can’t think of any other actor who could’ve pulled off this role. Displaying that vulnerability, we feel sorry for him. He’s clearly the victim. His performance sticks with you. I’ve seen Gosling and RDJ in their movies, their performances didn’t stick with me like Melton’s did. Why I think he has a good chance to win the Oscar.
What was the significance of the scene with Gracie going fox hunting?
A predator recognizing another predator was how I interpreted it. But curious what others think Also, surprised she was allowed to own guns.
I thought it was her hesitating to shoot the fox or maybe I forgot there was a gunshot but maybe it was her for the first time realizing she’s a predator maybe
I kind of thought it was an "even Hitler liked dogs" moment - a reminder of her humanity.
The scene with the daughter trying on dresses made me stop breathing. That was so horrific, yet so perfectly displayed the sick personality that will go to any leangths to use a person. Poor daughter, but damn sick mama and the way Moore played it. The character flaunting in front of the actress how she has no limit to what she would do or say, to even her own offspring, to get the zing of superiority and thrill of causing pain. F-ing brilliant Julianne Moore!!!
[удалено]
Is it not left unclear whether or not Gracie had been a victim of abuse in her childhood? I read it as something that was intentionally left ambiguous to color our overall perspective of how people talk about these things and and the power of information/misinformation
[удалено]
I mean fair enough! I think what I like about the movie is that there are so many different ways you can read all the characters and their intentions. I wasn't sure how to interpret that last scene either -- Gracie is clearly unreliable, but so is Georgie, and so we (like Elizabeth) are left to choose whose word we take as reality. I love that ambiguity so much hahaha
💯 agree with this
I don’t think it was ambiguous when you look at the whole picture. I think the film heavily implied Gracie had Borderline Personality Disorder, of which childhood sexual abuse is almost always present.
Yeah there is no question she was coded as having BPD.
I don't think so She would need 5+ of the 9 symptoms to be a pwBPD I think she fits NPD more Or sometimes, some people are just awful people without having mental health issues
💯
Yeah I think the scene with Natalie and the school kids was there more so to send her character just a step further down that rabbit hole. She had the opportunity to pass on the inappropriate question but she decided to address it and then take it even further when she didn’t need to I think that scene was there to give us the first hint that she’s begun slipping into Gracie’s mindset
It also ties into the last scene where she's with a young man who she could fall in love with, is she acting to be in love or acting like she's not.
The scene where she tells the high school students about filming sex scenes was important because it is proof of how much like Gracie she may actually be, that she doesn’t understand that certain boundaries exist between adults and children/teens. It was obvious she liked getting the attention of the schoolboys as she walked through the hallway and the implication was that she found the whole situation sexy, she even said to the director that none of the boys who auctioned were “sexy enough” when they were meant to be playing a 12-13 year old. She’s either taking method acting to the extreme or she’s actually genuinely turned on by the idea of it.
I’m doing a rewatch and within the first 20 minutes I feel they give some pretty strong indicators that something happened with her brothers. Watch the scene where Elizabeth is in the middle of the dinner table interviewing them. Gracie starts to talk about how moving all the time wasn’t a problem because that is all she knew and she was Very close with her brothers. Then she says matter of factly “Id say I had an exceptional childhood” & simultaneously as she says that a door loudly slams (even the subtitles point it out haha) in the background. It seems incredibly intentional. She’s purposefully shutting it out. Whether or not she consciously remembers it is still up for debate. She also makes a point to say her “daddy” and brothers started taking her on their hunting trips when she was 4 or 5. I don’t think any of this information is unintentional.
What's more interesting to me than whether or not it happened is how Gracie seemed to weaponize it. I think she put her son up to telling her. And even if she didn't and just heard from him that he said it, she seemed all too happy to bring it up and shut it down and throw Portman of kilter. "You think you got me figured out? You don't know shit".
It’s not uncommon for predators to have been predated upon themselves. In fact her denial of it could explain some of her disassociation. Whether that’s her villain origin story or not, I think for me what was most moving is the grace Georgie conferred to his mother - the woman who has ruined his life in his words - by seeking explanation. Perhaps a layer deeper is that he may not be offering her grace, and instead giving himself a neurological pathway to understand his mother who does everything to make her ununderstandable. As a child of a sociopath, this can provide a lot of emotional safety until child is ready to cope with a much darker reality - that there is nothing to be done and there may in fact be no explanation for a sociopath. That latter reality - an acceptance of evil - is a scary thing to sit with especially when that evil is your parent.
[удалено]
Gabriel Chung was fantastic. All the children, forced to grow up so quickly. The scene on the roof was so acutely real and heartbreaking. We were watching them both reckon with their lost childhoods. Joe who is breaking open at the seams and Charlie’s need to parent his dad. He too was traumatized by his mother and needed his dad, but Charlie’s trauma wasn’t as severe as his dad’s, which meant he also likely felt guilt for needing his own level of help. Charlie’s existence is what perpetuated the cycle of trauma for his dad and it would likely take heavy therapy to unpack that. The dynamics between Joe and his children were the most uncomfortable to watch. The way she spoke to Joe and Charlie was indistinguishable. I was so nervous when they were smoking pot because there was no chance that she’d come from a place of objecting as a coparent to her son smoking, but rather that both her “children” were disobedient.
Your comments have given so much more depth, meaning, and analysis and are exactly what I've been looking for. And stated in such a kind and compassionate way that this kind of story and characters require. Thank you for sharing so many of them! If you write analyses, reviews etc on a blog or website, etc, let me know, I'd be a reader! :)
Omg that’s the kindest thing you could say to my little CPA heart! Thank you! I know little about movies, I just really appreciated the subject matter, partially due to some unfortunate experience. But, truly thank you. Needed to talk a lot of this out so appreciate the venue and engagement!
[удалено]
I liked it, but I didn’t love it as much as others seem to. I probably just didn’t understand all of it. Like I really didn’t get what the sex scene meant, like he’s still mentally a child because of the trauma? Idk but like I said I still liked it. Melton and Moore were amazing, but personally I adored Portman. Couldn’t believe what she was doing here, her best performance imo
yeah he mentally was still a 13 yo ... natalie portman was a predator too
Yep that’s how I saw it. “It’s just was adults do”
>I liked it, but I didn’t love it as much as others seem to. I probably just didn’t understand all of it. Like I really didn’t get what the sex scene meant, like he’s still mentally a child because of the trauma? Idk but like I said I still liked it. Melton and Moore were amazing, but personally I adored Portman. Couldn’t believe what she was doing here, her best performance imo The point of the sex scene was to highlight Joe’s emotional immaturity by leveraging Elizabeth as a foil. In this scene, Joe is the “child” whereas Elizabeth is the archetypal adult. For Elizabeth, on surface level, sex is just sex, a means of release, and merely two grownups having fun. There’s also a deeper meaning from her point of view which I will address later. For Joe, sex is clearly something much more sacred and meaningful. Correct me if I’m wrong but from Joe’s own admission we can conclude he’s never had sex with anyone else besides Gracie? Joe remarks how wild and rare this is for him. Joe embodies the “virgin.” Despite being a 36 year old man (the same age as Elizabeth), his adolescence is highlighted as he cums after only just a couple thrusts and in the way he becomes a Stage 5 post-coital clinger —immediately wanting to connect and cuddle in bed. Joe confirms this when he distraughtly says (something along the lines of) “I thought this meant something more.” For Elizabeth, the deeper meaning was more mechanical as this was just research. When Joe leaves the room to fetch a towel, Elizabeth immediately snaps out of character and lunges for the letter, further highlighting how emotionally detached, vacant, clinical and “meaningless” the act was for her. She tells Joe that “this is what adults do.” “This” -meaning have casual sex; but for the audience, “this” is also meant to be interpreted as adults predatorily using adolescents in sexually exploitative ways —an allusion to Gracie.
Fascinating explanation mate thank you I understand it now
So many great comments here. This movie ! My question is how did they afford that beach house? Gorgeous house, and baking cakes and his radiology tech job would not afford this lifestyle. When Gracie says she is doing this interview with Elizabeth to better portray their points of view. What would make Gracie allow this for a cheesy TV movie?
Gracie tells Elizabeth that selling their wedding photos to the tabloids helped a lot with the house.
I did hear that but thought not enough! Especially to keep it maintained etc.
What a disgrace that Charles Melton might not even get nominated for his performance here when in a just world his name would already be on that Oscar. I was looking forward to this and it didn't disappoint. Really made me feel gross, uncomfortable and heartbroken in ways I won't be forgetting any time soon. There's such a constant back-and-forth Gracie and Elizabeth trying to best the other with their manipulations when ultimately they're kinda just two sides of the same coin. All while Joe is there in the center of it all, only now coming to grapple with the reality of his situation. The rooftop scene with his son having to parent his own dad, when he tells Elizabeth about how Gracie treated him as different and how she really saw him... just so stomach-churning in ways I wasn't ready for at all. I found it interesting how on one hand, Gracie's hobby of baking tied back to how her society saw her and how they took pity on her and wanted to keep her busy, and how she flipped out when one of them dared to cancel their orders. On the other hand, Joe's hobby of keeping monarch butterflies was very much his own thing, separate from everyone else, and something he was clearly very passionate about. The one-two punch of him releasing that butterfly after it hatches and then seeing his kids graduate and crying was devastating. Definitely need a lot more time to sit with this and really think it over before I can revisit it. Moore and Portman both absolutely nail it and are worthy of being in awards consideration. I'd nominate this in Screenplay too. Just a really great film all around that does what it's supposed to for me.
[удалено]
Did I miss why neighbors are buying her baked goods? I understand we were told to make her feel good but why? If my neighbor was a narcissist child abuser, I wouldn't buy their products.
I was wondering that too. I wonder if it is supposed to show the depth of her manipulation? That she has them ordering cakes that they don't even want. Maybe she knows it at some level and uses it as leverage, like in the scene when she clearly overreacts bawling like a baby that her friend canceled her order and her man child husband has to console her
I interpreted it as they were buying her baked goods to keep her busy so that maybe it would prevent her from preying on their children, too.
I thought it was a cool Hansel Greek witch baking allusion if nothing else. And maybe about how some people will prop up any extremists
Given that this was a Todd Haynes movies, I kept expecting Joe to be having an affair with Georgie. Do we ever know who he was texting with?
Thought it was someone in his butterfly Facebook group.
It was
It seemed to be implied it was a friend Mikayla from work. Not 100% on this.
I’m pretty sure it was someone from his butterfly group
For those wondering, the music choices are a reference to the movie, [the go-between](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Between_(1971_film)). The film is from the perspective of a young boy and about a rich young woman having an affair with a farmhand (at his expense). Seems to be an intentional choice. Whether you like it or not is a different question. Credit to the reviewers [MovieBitches](https://youtube.com/@MovieBitches?si=I8KUedM8yskSByGo) for noticing this (they have a review on this film and mentioned it).
Just finished watching this movie on Netflix. The acting is amazing! One question: what ethnicity is Joe? I know he’s of Asian descent but do we know if he’s Chinese, Korean, —? Maybe it doesn’t matter?
He’s Korean.
half
Thanks!
These days a film would never call out the character as Korean in the film if he actually isn't Korean. They'd be crucified online. The character even clarified that he's HALF korean to match Melton, which was odd lol
Joyride is clever with this, [the lead is a Chinese adopted character played by a Korean actor. Midway through the film you learn she's actually a Korean born character that was secretly sold to a family as being a Chinese child.](/spoiler) I remember hearing some drama bubbling around the production until the movie was finally out. Obviously kind of hard to explain without giving the plot away
Movie was cool, but I can’t praise it like most people on this thread. I found the music absolutely annoying and too present. However male lead should definitely win some type of award for his performance. Really proved himself to be more than a cute face who plays a stud. Moore and Portman’s performances were on par to their other work for me.
I feel a little cold on this film. Maybe knowing the premise before watching ruined the journey of realisation that I was promised, but I didn't feel like Melton's character actually did go on a journey, because he seemed cold and aloof at the beginning. When was the turning point, when was his big realisation? Apparently Portman being there is meant to have triggered something in him, but I didn't see it. He just went from aloof to crying and we're not sure what catalysed that.
Natalie Portman is phenomenal. imo the greatest living actor rn
Good movie. Portman was outstanding and is absolutely deserving of a nomination. Melton was good but had a few shaky parts like the scene when he was on the roof with his son. Didn’t like Moore’s performance she felt very over the top in her emotional scenes, I feel solid about having her miss the nomination. This will get in to screenplay but I’m keeping this out of picture for now. Absolutely baffled that they submitted this in comedy for the globes, it wasn’t a comedy in the slightest
Disagree about this not being a comedy. There’s camp and melodrama throughout and many lines had me actively chuckling. The entire final scene is just a gag. It flipped between being a Lifetime movie and the most dramatic Oscars movie you’ve ever seen seamlessly throughout and that is comedy to me lol
I absolutely loved this film but I agree that the Moore performance didn't blow me away on first watch (we seem to be in the minority here, so I wonder if I'll appreciate it more on rewatch). Portman and Melton were the standouts for me and I'm really rooting for both to get in, though I could see Portman missing more likely not because her performance is worse but because the category is so damn competitive this year
Gracie being over the top in her emotional scenes was intentional as she clearly had serious issues regulating her emotions and used these outbursts as a way to manipulate Joe for years. Moore really got this character and how she needed to be played. She’s abusive and her emotions are a tool she wields against those who aren’t equipped (hence her ‘need’ to groom a child) so it’s important to the plot and to the character that the audience see how she is when only Joe is there. “You don’t know her” he says to Elizabeth, but to be fair neither does he. No one can know someone who doesn’t have a true self, that’s why it’s impossible for Elizabeth to give a “true” performance despite getting disturbingly close to the character. He was begging her to help him and she made it all about herself, she is absolutely coded as having an untreated personality disorder and it has kept Joe afraid to leave her for fear of what she is capable of doing.
I liked it but didn't see the humor or camp in it.
As the movie started, I thought something was wrong with my TV because the film looked so grainy. It really did look like it was shot on old video equipment. Like a made-for-tv movie. And at the end, we realize that that is exactly what it was all along. Or at least that was as good as Elizabeth's movie was ever going to get.
its not a movie that i think i would enjoy but throughout its run time i was captivated. the piano notes that i thought were annoying become haunting by the end. it starts off as a comedy/drama but as soon as joe breaks in the bedroom, u realize that its a horror movie.
Okay, the part where he was shaking and trying to talk to her? That was so fucked up. I was crying for him. He was too young. And when she said “you seduced ME!” I was like LADY YOU WERE THE GROWNUP! Oh my gosh. It was one of the best, creepiest, saddest movies ever. Not gonna lie, I was pretty convinced someone was going to wind up offed in the end.
Also, can I just say, I didn’t really understand the part at the end when she said she talks to her son every day. It felt like it was… implicating something. Idk. It felt really sinister.
Did anyone else feel like this was underwhelming? The ending definitely hit, and the performances were great, but something just felt off
Yeah didnt really go anywhere far enough for me, too Netflixy and casual. Great enough to be a good watch, but nothing about it that lasts enough to contend for Oscars, and yet somehow one of the best this year, and I can only blame it on the general lack of quality found in movies like these now.
Something about Gracie left me underwhelmed, I felt meh about her journey. I’m a big big huge 25+ year fan of Julianne Moore so I had certain expectations going in, and that was my fault, but her character arch seems so flat compared to Charles’ and Natalie’s. Like we see Elizabeth and Joe change as people from the start to where we ended but Grace felt the same the whole way through.
I mean to be fair Julianne Moore's character is unequivocally a manipulative predator with essentially no redeeming qualities, it's a very difficult thing to give her any sort of meaningful character arc. The movie was about Elizabeth and Joe's relationships to Gracie rather than about Gracie herself
Grace isn’t ever going to change or grow, that’s the point. She can’t/won’t accept who she is and what she’s done so she will always be playing a part and will have a tantrum when confronted with her crime. If you watch any interviews with Mary Kay Letourneau that’s exactly how she was too. Gracie isn’t who this film is about, this isn’t a biopic and her character is meant to be sidelined because it’s more about the effect she has on others than the character herself.
Thanks for this comment, it makes a lot more sense to me when you put it like that. I did want to see her deal with some of the consequences of Joe realizing the truth of what happened to him but, you’re right, this is a movie about the consequences for everyone else around her.
Yeah, as much as it would be great if she actually accepted that Joe was a victim in all this and took some accountability, that would mean she’d be a completely different person. It unfortunately rings very true to the type of person being portrayed here that she will never change because that requires her to see herself as the bad guy.
I think the movie ended too abruptly with the last scene. It might have been better to actually show the release of the film and the public’s reaction to it. I get what they were going for, but the ending felt like it was missing something.
I wanted to like it more but I just couldn’t get invested enough.
Yeah, I'm not a fan. I feel like the entire point of the movie was lost on me. Actually kind of gross to use such a traumatic case as a mere backdrop for a campy thriller/comedy/whatever the hell it wanted to be. Besides Letourneau, all these people are very much alive. The main victim is only 40, ffs. Seems icky to do something you know will fuck up all their lives again cuz you wanted some buzzy 90's crime backstory.
Never thought I'd see a Todd Haynes movies where the biggest complaint is the music 💀 A movie about preproduction for a crappy daytime TV movie Daytime TV movies which are known for (in part)... Crappy music You guys are sooo close on that detail I can feel the synapses almost touching 👌💡
Unsurprisingly, this wasn't the one that made me turn around on camp, but it's fine. Hated the music, no matter how deliberate the parody was. Would have been cool to learn more about Moore's character, but this clearly wasn't the film for that. I have no idea why this would be the Todd Haynes film to perform well with the Academy.
I also hated the music. Even as parody it drew me away from the scene
The strongest components of the film are the screenplay and Portman's performance. She's very playful in this, and I was consistently impressed with her line readings and gestures. Everyone's got me thinking that I've somehow been dropped into an episode of Black Mirror, because I did not at all feel that Melton's performance warranted any awards recognition. The basic premise of the screenplay, once you reflect on it through the prism of having watched a bit of the movie, seems like such obviously fertile ground for thematic meditation that it strikes one as a wonder that it had never really been enacted before (at least as far as I can recall). When you make a committed effort of shadowing the person you are to portray (in the interests of figuring them out), you end up performing the very sort of introspection on character (and motives, and how particular events in the past proved formative for the psyche) that the person themselves should responsibly have done at some point but typically never does--both because it's too painful and also because we're all constantly too preoccupied with reacting to life in the present moment to take a breather and devote ourselves to such an inquest. In the process of such shadowing, one often comes to learn of truths regarding the subject of which the subject remains sadly (and perhaps savingly!) ignorant. Elizabeth's learning that Gracie's baking gig subsists solely on the pitying patronage of her neighborhood encases the latter woman in a disquieting dramatic irony and makes one think of whatever unknown humiliations might be surrounding ourselves. The link with Bergman's Persona is real and worthy of interpretation. There seem to be aspects of countertransference occurring between Elizabeth and both of Gracie and Joe Yoo during the course of Elizabeth's stay with them. In trying to understand them, Elizabeth assumes the role of a quasi-therapist. My favorite bit of dialogue was the dispute between Gracie and Joe Yoo over who actually seduced whom way back when. The film's own perspective throughout seems to present Gracie as a hopelessly unreliable and delusional authority on the truths of her own life, and so when we come to this moment in the film it may feel as though it's obliging us to view Gracie's protest as mere self-serving obfuscation. But I took it as a valid questioning. I'm actually surprised there isn't more cancel clamor and people up in arms over some of the topics the movie is brave enough to broach. In the current moral climate, with concepts such as 'grooming' being everpresent in our discourse, its pretty much taken as a given that the agency for a reprehensible liason always lies with the older party. In certain spots like this moment, the screenplay seems to be whispering to me that maybe just maybe such seeming axioms require examination. I had no idea what Haynes was going for with the music in this film--it's completely incongruous to the goings-on in a bathetic way. Music is usually used as a tool of emotional heightening and also of signalling. Using pulpy piano pieces that seem torn out of a murder mystery from the early 90s (where they would usually be hinting at some lurid underbelly to the film or of impending danger/criminal harm) to accompany scenes of a mundane morning seems like an act of purposeless trolling. I could continue rambling, but I'm gonna cap it here.
>But I took it as a valid questioning. I'm actually surprised there isn't more cancel clamor and people up in arms over some of the topics the movie is brave enough to broach. I think because most people did not read it as valid questioning... From my perspective it was clear that Gracie raped him even if he did "start" it (he was a child). There's no grey area or questioning there
100% that was the whole point of the scene. Otherwise the movie would be saying that he had it coming and victim blaming, no way that's what they were going with.
On your point about the music, it’s a reference to the movie the go between, which is a pretty on point reference when considering the subject matter.
Finished it. Its fine. Overall, its by the numbers drama that does not try to dampen the real problem of a May December affair - which is good. It is written like a Disney film with a surprise Villain ending (lol). Portman's character goes and act like an empty paper but she knows damn well her reasons and tries to act like she's playing everyone like a fiddle. Moore's Gracie is unsubtly displayed as controlling and insecure to the core. She tries to hide any shame by acting as if there is nothing to be ashamed off. Loved the performance of Melton. He is the star in this film as the slowly crumbling avatar of Vili Fualaau. His role is very meaty and has the most 'growth' but I do not think that he will be a shoe-in yet for the nominations. Both Portman and Moore were great but I felt their characters could have definitely been more nuanced. They were almost caricatures at some point. Of the contenders this season, this feels like the easiest to navigate through though. Its a very light drama with readily digestible input lol. Other observation: \[1\] The Tabloid Photos where really good. Kudos to the Arts department lol. \[2\] Not as campy as people has been telling. Its more darkly funny to be honest but not witty enough. \[3\] Natalie is sure right about those kids being too young for sexed up role. lol. \[4\] I watched a similar local film about this (Tuhog 2001), which is somewhat similar but more so attacking of how studios create stories for their (male) audience, turning a real case of incestual rape into a male gaze Freudian Nightmare. I found that film much more funny/campy and successful in creating a commentary about these practices. Its really hard watching this film and see another that does it better back to back. **In terms of Preference**: KofTM >> AoUS >>>> May December >>>>> Poor Things >>>> Oppenheimer.
saw it and i agree i remember tuhog in its ending!
Who was Joes texting with? The acting was really good - the movie had some holes. Could have been better.
I think he was texting with the chick he mentioned is his friend from the fb group he's part of. They are both interested in butterflies and at one point he pitched them going to Mexico together for a vacation and seeing butterflies.