SpelingError

This was truly something else. I think I've finally arrived at a consensus, but making sense of it was a real challenge given how often I kept jumping back and forth on the film. Some of the reservations I pondered over included whether the film delivered its capitalist commentary in the most obvious way possible, whether Gennarino's growing physical/sexual abuse muddled its political musings, the apparent Stockholm syndrome angle, and whether the film was attempting to garner sympathy for Gennarino. After some mulling, I ultimately decided this was pretty stellar and I look forward to revisiting it down the road now that I know what to expect.

First things first, I don't think this was solely intended as a critique of capitalism. I think it's more about the cyclical nature of oppression and the unfortunate tragic irony of how swapping the roles between the upper and lower classes as a form of punishment causes you to be the perpetrator of the issues you initially condemned the other side for. Though Gennarino claimed to be a Communist, the forms of punishment he inflicted on Raffaella (making her work for food and establishing a hierarchy between them) all reek of the issues he criticized the rich for. In defense, Gennarino claims he merely wanted her to see how he felt when she abused him, but then his treatment keeps growing in severity until he loses control and becomes just as, if not more manipulative than her.

Another point of contention is how Raffaella seemingly falls in love with Gennarino. I touched on this at the start when I brought up Stockholm syndrome, but I did use the word "apparent" since I'm not sure that was actually the idea. I'm not 100% on this, but given Raffaella's actions in the ending, I don't know that she was necessarily in love with him so much as she felt there was no other option for her to survive the island. The film doesn't explicitly say this, so my interpretation could be wrong, but again, the helicopter scene in the ending is a pretty crucial moment which suggests her passion was a ruse all along. I'm sure this reading will be too implicit for some people, but regardless of where you stand, I'll also note that I generally don't have an issue with Stockholm syndrome. It's a real-life occurrence, so why can't it occur in film? Plus, I don't think we're asked to sympathize with Gennarino. His flaws are left right out in the open and he seems pretty pathetic by the end.

Overall, while my appreciation of the film remained shaky while watching it, it has sat quite well upon reflection and gave me a lot to ponder over. It's definitely not the kind of film I'm going to forget about anytime soon.

Frank Machin makes for the most complex character I've seen Lindsay Anderson create so far. While his bitter personality and his treatment of Margaret makes him far from likable, dismissing him as abusive would be missing his various nuances. Instead, one gets the impression he genuinely does care for Margaret and has good intentions (with his numerous assertions of his love for her). He just frequently lacks an understanding of how to interact around her and the roughness he displays during his rugby matches tend to spill over outside the pitch. Due to that, the film could be seen as a breakdown of toxic masculinity, but Frank's failure to realize this behavior is exactly what Margaret is pushing back against is what conflicts everything. Margaret recognizes he wants to help her take care of herself and her children but first wants him to better himself before she welcomes him with open arms. Though the non-linear angle was dropped after the first third, cross-cutting Frank's early scenes with him undergoing dental surgery due to a sports injury made for a great juxtaposition since they say all that needs to be said about the roughness of his sport and the negative influences it has on his relations outside of the pitch. Even with the other rugby matches depicted, Frank's aggressiveness (often elbowing and punching other players) further helps to bring insight to why he acts the way he does off the field. Phenomenal final scene, by the way. Ultimately, as pathetic as he was, I still held out a bit of sympathy for him since the rare, tender moments of Frank bonding with Margaret's children show he's capable of controlling himself in the right setting.