Bad Manners

An ageing couple of academics are stuck in a stale marriage. Her old boyfriend comes to stay for a few days with his (much younger) girlfriend. Things are tense from the beginning. And then $50 goes missing.

This is an extraordinary film. I started watching it while working on my computer - so the movie was just on in the background - but gradually it pulled me in and I couldn't take my eyes off it.

The scenario it sets up could have gone in a number of different directions. At one point early on I had a horrible feeling it was going to be a standard sex flick about middle-aged adultery. Or, after the money goes missing, it might have moved too fast and forced us to watch a bunch of repressed characters suddenly turning to screaming and violence. But no - it's classier than that. What we get instead is a slow-burning exploration of character and relationships. And it isn't at all clear where it is going to go.

I won't over-praise it. The film drags at times, and as others have said its origins as a stage play are very obvious (there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, except that it does show a slightly limited imagination). The acting is good, rather than top-notch, and personally I always find Saul Rubineck is one of those actors who plays the same character every time.

So it is not perfect. But if you're in the mood for something a little 'off the beat,' it's worth watching. Just don't expect to get any work done while it's on!

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.

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).

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.

This should not be the question. The writer's intention was to characterize four different types of people and the opinions they have about each other. Who believes whom? Who trusts whom? And who is lying? And why? The German title of the movie means „Little Lies Among Friends` in English, which hits the nail on the head: This story is a small, even a little sadistic view on interhuman relationships and how they are easily destroyed by secrets, lies and misunderstandings.

I really enjoyed the movie, although it's easy to see that it was a play originally; the constellation of characters reminds very much of Albee's „Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?` and many dialogues are longer than usual in movies. Of course, „Bad Manners` lacks Albee's brilliance of language and his mental brutality, but it's a creative approach. Especially David Strathairn's character is very interesting because it's the most unpredictable one.