Bad Manners

Let`s see if I got this straight ? Nancy invites her former lover Matt and Kim his new partner to stay with her and her husband Wes . Excuse me but how many men would allow their wife to do this ? What you would ? But that`s because you`d like to have a wife swap ! Well that`s not what I meant , what I meant was ... oh never mind . On second thoughts that`s what Wes might have been thinking of . As soon as you see him you`re reminded of that schoolteacher you had , you know the one whose only function in life was to make every kids life a complete misery and I`m certain people like that do so because they`re sexual inadequates . Oh and Wes is money obsessed and a rabid non smoker so I guess he needs a vice like wife swapping to give his life some purpose . And Matt what`s he all about ? He`s a nice guy but he`s a middle aged nice guy , he`s a fat middle aged guy and he`s having it off with Kim a pretty fit girl who`s young enough to be his daughter . Like hello Earth to Ken what`s it like being a schmuck ? I can`t say I can blame Matt since Kim`s fit , young and in your face which is a big turn on for most men especially fat middle aged ones . I bet she`s great in bed too because she comes across as having plenty of past form , in fact compared to her Monica Lewinsky`s a bit frigid . And Nancy ? Well put it like this if someone took an overdose of prozac the doctor`s would prescribe a ten minute conversation with Nancy as an antidote . So in BAD MANNERS not only do the characters deserve all they get - they all deserve each other in this talky drama that states God does not play dice

A woman who is a tenured professor at Harvard invites an old boyfriend to her home. He brings along an ill-mannered (hence the title) girlfriend who, moreover, the woman's husband thinks stole $50 from his wallet. That's the setup, and from there it deteriorates. Why does the woman not ask her guests to leave? No reason is even suggested. If you can swallow that, perhaps you can enjoy the rest of the movie, though there isn't much to it except more bad manners and suspicions and accusations and, notwithstanding the blurbs on the videocassette box, precious little wit. Oh, yes, you get to hear the girl talk dirty.

There is also the putative pleasure of seeing that the rich (the Cambridge mansion where the movie takes place is worth a fortune in today's real estate market - right now you can take advantage of a pre-construction offer and purchase a studio apartment in Central Square for $360,000), and the highly respected, handle their personal affairs as poorly as the rest of us. If you changed the characters' professions, if the Harvard professor were a waitress, and her former boyfriend was in town not to deliver a musicology lecture but to compete in a bowling tournament, and if the setting were a 2-bedroom apartment in Queens, I strongly suspect the critics would pan the movie as just a lot of uninteresting and, yes, ill-mannered conversation where nothing happens.

But the professor is not a waitress, she is a tenured member of the Harvard faculty. No one, certainly no woman, achieves that distinction by being an ineffectual wimp. Yet no intelligent, forceful person would put up with this invasion of her home, and even attack on her marriage - she would ask her guests to leave (there's plenty of nice hotels in Cambridge).

This film works on a number of levels. First it is a nice satire on academic life. As others have noted, it is a companion piece to Whose Afraid of Viginia Woolf. It does a nice job of satirizing the competitiveness and egotism of academic life. It also raises two important issues: how can/does non-scientific spirituality interact with a scientifically-minded academic community and misfortune can lead to misunderstanding and ruined relationships. The movie allows us to think about these two problems without forcing any really heavy conclusions on us.

The acting is excellent and the direction terrific. May wife and I (both teachers) were laughing in just about every scene. I think teachers and other intellectuals will really appreciate the movie. Others may have a tougher time with it.

If you liked Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?, you will probably enjoy this movie. It is well-conceived, minimalist and sharply focused: A foursome comprised of two academic couples compete for the egoistic satisfaction of out-guessing each other, questioning and jeopardizing the foundation of their relationships in the process. Thoughtfully written, brilliantly acted, and keenly photographed. A must see.

Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee.

Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.