<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Revolutionary Road: another one bites the dust</title>
	<atom:link href="http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/02/21/revolutionary-road-another-one-bites-the-dust/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/02/21/revolutionary-road-another-one-bites-the-dust/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:04:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicholas Gruen</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/02/21/revolutionary-road-another-one-bites-the-dust/#comment-347002</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicholas Gruen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clubtroppo.com.au/?p=7337#comment-347002</guid>
		<description>Thx James - I&#039;m not sure how to expand my admittedly already vague comment that you refer to.  I guess for the film to have some human interest for me, the idea of decamping needs to have some content. Did they want to decamp - more particularly did she want to decamp to follow some political ideal?  No. An aesthetic ideal?  No, unless it&#039;s a vague notion of what &#039;life is like&#039; in Paris. 

There being no real content to this psychological condition that is tearing the couple apart, it is a study of a kind of psychological vacuum.  But even that, it doesn&#039;t seem to me, is given any real content. There are a series of episodes that illustrate gradual decline - in the relationship and the mental health of April.

Now I&#039;m aware this may not satisfy you either.  It&#039;s a story and in a sense I&#039;m objecting to it not being another story.  I couldn&#039;t get my interest up in it.  

On the kids, there&#039;s no problem with their being &#039;out of focus&#039;.  At least not in principle. As you say, it&#039;s a film about the parents.  But kids have a way of refusing to be out of focus.  And for those who want them out of focus, if they don&#039;t have nannies and governesses and cooks and cleaners, they have a habit of bringing themselves into focus. This is true at the practical level - kids need a lot of attention just to make sure you don&#039;t get taken away by the authorities for neglect.

And it&#039;s true at the psychological level. If that kind of mayhem is going on in a family kids will pick it up and that will feed back to the parents. The kids won&#039;t sleep, they&#039;ll fret, they&#039;ll find a way to make it their parents problem, they&#039;ll wet beds, muck up at school, you name it. It is inconceivable to me that, in such a family going through such psychological stresses, that this wouldn&#039;t surface in their own psychodramas, which after all is essentially what the film is about. 

My own interpretation is that the script was written by people to whom children are essentially invisible. I know people like this. They can&#039;t really relate to children until they&#039;re old enough to engage in &#039;interesting&#039; and &#039;sensible&#039; things.  

Given that the subject of the film is the life of a family with young kids, I conclude that the creators of the film and perhaps the book (which I&#039;ve not read so I cannot know) suffer from some fairly comprehensive problem, triviality, adult narcissism, whatever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thx James &#8211; I&#8217;m not sure how to expand my admittedly already vague comment that you refer to.  I guess for the film to have some human interest for me, the idea of decamping needs to have some content. Did they want to decamp &#8211; more particularly did she want to decamp to follow some political ideal?  No. An aesthetic ideal?  No, unless it&#8217;s a vague notion of what &#8216;life is like&#8217; in Paris. </p>
<p>There being no real content to this psychological condition that is tearing the couple apart, it is a study of a kind of psychological vacuum.  But even that, it doesn&#8217;t seem to me, is given any real content. There are a series of episodes that illustrate gradual decline &#8211; in the relationship and the mental health of April.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m aware this may not satisfy you either.  It&#8217;s a story and in a sense I&#8217;m objecting to it not being another story.  I couldn&#8217;t get my interest up in it.  </p>
<p>On the kids, there&#8217;s no problem with their being &#8216;out of focus&#8217;.  At least not in principle. As you say, it&#8217;s a film about the parents.  But kids have a way of refusing to be out of focus.  And for those who want them out of focus, if they don&#8217;t have nannies and governesses and cooks and cleaners, they have a habit of bringing themselves into focus. This is true at the practical level &#8211; kids need a lot of attention just to make sure you don&#8217;t get taken away by the authorities for neglect.</p>
<p>And it&#8217;s true at the psychological level. If that kind of mayhem is going on in a family kids will pick it up and that will feed back to the parents. The kids won&#8217;t sleep, they&#8217;ll fret, they&#8217;ll find a way to make it their parents problem, they&#8217;ll wet beds, muck up at school, you name it. It is inconceivable to me that, in such a family going through such psychological stresses, that this wouldn&#8217;t surface in their own psychodramas, which after all is essentially what the film is about. </p>
<p>My own interpretation is that the script was written by people to whom children are essentially invisible. I know people like this. They can&#8217;t really relate to children until they&#8217;re old enough to engage in &#8216;interesting&#8217; and &#8216;sensible&#8217; things.  </p>
<p>Given that the subject of the film is the life of a family with young kids, I conclude that the creators of the film and perhaps the book (which I&#8217;ve not read so I cannot know) suffer from some fairly comprehensive problem, triviality, adult narcissism, whatever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Farrell</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/02/21/revolutionary-road-another-one-bites-the-dust/#comment-346999</link>
		<dc:creator>James Farrell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clubtroppo.com.au/?p=7337#comment-346999</guid>
		<description>Nicholas, I don&#039;t understand your key criticism, namely that &#039;there was no real flicker of this thing inside the couple that might give their decamping for a new life any real interest&#039;, so can&#039;t respond.

On the other hand, I do understand the point about about the children, but don&#039;t agree. The story is about the couple&#039;s relationship, not about family life. The children are important to the story only as abstractions, they need to be out of focus.

Great choice of cartoon, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nicholas, I don&#8217;t understand your key criticism, namely that &#8216;there was no real flicker of this thing inside the couple that might give their decamping for a new life any real interest&#8217;, so can&#8217;t respond.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I do understand the point about about the children, but don&#8217;t agree. The story is about the couple&#8217;s relationship, not about family life. The children are important to the story only as abstractions, they need to be out of focus.</p>
<p>Great choice of cartoon, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

