Susan, how strange - I watched “May December” last night and was so flummoxed by my response that I felt I needed to read a recap or reviews of the thing (I came to it cold, beyond the Netflix blurb about it being a strange “comedy”) - and then here was your post. Thank god. You did a great job of picking this apart at the same time that you gave Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore their due. I think “May December” is occasionally brilliant, those shots of vulnerable Monarch caterpillars in their cages, Moore’s ability to convey self-deception that’s both pitiable and narcissistic - but this movie is very far from a comedy, and the fact that critics, audiences, and marketing hacks have labeled it as such floors me.
You’re right that Haynes makes some missteps (miscues?), especially with the overbearing music and titles. But otherwise, the wry nods to tabloid media, unintentional cutting (and banal) dialogue, and the constant scrutiny of the woman at the center is the kind of painful wit that might make me nod or twist my lips - but laugh out loud? Nope, no way. It’s like labeling Bergman’s “Seventh Seal” as an oddball comedy about the plague.
I think I’m more literal than many film critics or the elite of Cannes, but this left me wondering where such viewers’ hearts and minds had gone. I was so disturbed by “May December” that I had to watch a bunch of sitcom repeats and still couldn’t sleep. Thanks, as always, for getting under the surface 🙏🏽
I’m with you. It was disturbing—I didn’t go into half of how I felt after watching it, because it meant revealing stuff about my own life I wasn’t prepared to in a substack post, but also because I didn’t want to go into a whole lot about the predatory nature of the “regular” news, let alone the tabloids. Maybe because I’d just done reposted some pieces about it, Diana’s death came to mind, too. In those days, at least we were capable of being appalled by the role the paparazzi played. And I, like you, was left wondering what’s going on with the critics—virtually all of the ones I read!—who see this as a “dark” comedy. I’m not even sure I know what that would look like nowadays. “Killing Eve,” maybe. But not this. (I like your phrase “painful wit” much better than “wicked comedy.”)
It feels like an increasingly weird, unraveling world, and I guess I'm out of step — except that Taylor Swift, the champion of girl power, has just been voted Time's "Person of the Year." So, maybe the non-Swiftie critics are out of step? Yes, sure – but somehow they're still controlling at least part of the media narrative. I don't see fans who embraced Taylor and "Barbie" as anywhere near the bubble of those who think "May December" is a comedy. But I guess the real bottom line is that all this stuff sells, which makes the Netflix hacks happy, regardless of appropriateness or psychological violence or sweetness and light. Painful wit indeed.
Lack of sleep makes me even more cynical than usual today :-)
Dec 7, 2023·edited Dec 7, 2023Liked by Susan Bordo
I agree with you and Martha Nichols you that there is little humor in this film, not even unintentional humor. The material is just too creepy to make light of. I'm not sure why people would laugh at the card either, but I'd say it was out of a kind of embarrassment. There is plenty of tension and some terribly awkward moments, but that's not 'dark comedy'.
What it does have are brilliant performances all around.
While watching Julianne Moore, I was reminded a little of Vivian Leigh as Blanche Dubois. The roles are not 100% analogous, but there are parallels one could draw. Gracie wants so much to believe that Joe at 13 was in control, but he's no Stanley Kowalski. It was the chilling and pathetic moment when Gracie is unmasked as an abuser/predator. It also serves to mirro Elizabeth's predatory behavior.
Joe had been trying to maintain a lie of his own—his emotional armoring—that he was not a victim. These two lies dovetail, but his misconstrual is shattered when he has sex with Elizabeth. The disgust he feels has the effect of opening his eyes, so when Elizabeth says, "it's what adults do", aside from being a shitty, bitchy thing to say, it's like code for "Now you can finally grow up."
Regardless of what he says about himself Joe's victimhood is symbolized by his fascination for butterflies, and the fact that he is seduced in the pet shop, as if he were a specimen himself.
I agree that the music was a misstep. There was no reason to signal "something's wrong here" so stridently.
And by the way, seeing Oppenheimer made me rewatch Spielberg's Lincoln, which has reams of dialogue as well, but manages to pull that off better. Something to ponder.
Sorry I got to this so late! Your analysis of Joe’s battle with identifying as a victim is so good! Hard for me to see Gracie as Blanche-like, though. Maybe I need to hear more from you about that comparison.
Yes, well, as I said, the analogy is limited because the two plots are so different. The lies they maintain are flimsy constructs that become the basis of their realities, and it's what makes the characters so completely phony. They are hiding so much from the world, and what they hide from themselves is worse. Blanche, remember, was also fired from her teaching job for involvement with an under-age student. Gracie tries to justify her predation with something so ludicrous that I think it could only be born of a profound sense of guilt. Each is unmasked differently. Blanche will have her fantasy ripped to shreds by Mitch and Stanley, whereas Joe returns home and confronts Gracie in their bedroom. Gracie will also have to see her fiction as portrayed by Elizabeth, who'll undoubtedly pull no punches. This analogy does falls apart in the end though, Blanche completely breaking from reality, and Gracie locked into her duel with Elizabeth.
About that: I liked the way Haynes echoed the symmetry between them through the composition of that first shot and the wardrobe, only to break it again with the dialogue. "Insecure people are dangerous. I'm secure; make sure you put that in there." I thought a lot about that hurt look on Elizabeth's face...
Dec 26, 2023·edited Dec 26, 2023Liked by Susan Bordo
I'm late responding to this, just getting some time (more this coming weekend, I hope) to catch up on your work. Great pleasure to read so skilled and insightful a reader and analyst.
I'm completely with you on May December. I came to it much less judgmental than most, to the real-life case, from a standpoint you articulate, about distrust and rejection of repressive conventional responses to the extraordinary. In that light, the film was very deeply disturbing for me, offering so many upsetting insights. I think that is the reason, as you say in different ways in different places, that people oddly label this film, and many others, comedic. It's a distancing mechanism from their own disturbance. Haynes says he sought a different distance in various ways, to open up complex reception of the circumstances and relationships -- and constructing in return a comedic response is a way of closing off the upsetting open space of that distance.
Referring to what I read of yours elsewhere, it's that same idea of repressive convention that has me responding a little differently to some elements of The Crown. I've always been completely uninterested in the British royal family. The series captured me from the start because It was, then, historical -- what does interest me. Others who liked it from the start became more critical as the present approached. I think that to be because they feel greater ownership of representations of the present, with many more small ways to feel dissatisfaction with the representation. I, feeling no such ownership on this topic, thought the quality was maintained throughout.
From the beginning, I saw Morgan developing two contrasting visions, which contradict, of course. One is the weight of history, tradition, all the rest, on anyone born into "the system," who must, as number one or mate to number one (Philip, in early seasons) be impressed with that weight of responsibility and obligation -- captured, so to speak, by its grand mission. Once so, there is almost no separation between number one and mate and the system itself (with cracks that show up, earlier, in Philip, and in the space of Elizabeth's "sacrifice.") Everyone else -- from the Duke of Windsor to Margaret to Harry, and all those attached to them -- is "spare," expendable. I think the necessarily more abbreviated depiction of the William-Harry relationship than the Elizabeth-Margaret relationship should be seen in that thematic light. Clearly Morgan didn't set out to take a hammer to the Crown, and he wanted in the end to honor that sense of Elizabeth's honorable service to her historic mission. But he offers powerful depictions throughout of the cruelty of the system to the expendables, and also to someone who needs to be brought into line -- Charles, in his youth, to whom Elizabeth is actually dramatized to say, "No one cares what you feel."
This is great. Makes me think one could write a piece weaving the two together in terms of the different (but with some overlap via press attention) forces of repression that create outsiders and deform the insiders. And I suppose there are plenty of other films that could go in that category too! Great to have you here contributing your insights, and look forward to more!
I totally agree that there was little humorous in this film. I also related on a personal, visceral level, seeing parallels with women in my life and myself. The acting and direction were brilliantly focused. I think, if you were not paying attention, a bit too nuanced for many, especially if you are not living an examined life. A tragedy trying to be funny is how general media translates human stories because it's easier and quicker than truth.
Thank you so much! I really enjoyed this deeply interesting analysis! It reminded me of a true story of a French high school teacher who had an affair with one of her students during the 1968 “May-June” protests! She was horribly castigated by “society”, imprisoned, I believe later committed suicide!
A movie was made of the “affair” but I never could get a hold of it to see what was made of the event. It was so satisfying to see what an excellent, compassionate understanding can be held of the situation and the characters involved in it.
I love Tod Haynes especially the film on the couple played by Julliane Moore
Thank you, Gail. I also love Haynes’s movies. And would love to see more about that French affair. My husband, who keeps u[ with things French, may know something about it.
I have followed, with deep discomfort, the true stories that inspired this movie. I once sat on a plane beside a middle-aged man who seemed to me profoundly damaged by an “affair” with a teacher who broke his heart. I will come to this movie with preconceptions that I expect to be challenged. Then I’ll return to your review. And Everything, Everwhere…? Couldn’t watch it. A lot of nothing, in my view.
I remember your post about that young man! I do think this movie shows how much damage the relationship has done to Charlie—in a much more disturbing way than simple moral condemnation; there’s a scene between him and Gracie in which he tries to tell her that, and she shuts him down. But he’s changed from the boy he was, and it’s not at all clear what the future holds for him and Gracie.I hope my review doesn’t suggest this is a good, healthy relationship! And I’ll be very interested to know what you think of it. I liked it because it shows, too, that there are other predators besides Gracie. Elizabeth—what an exploitative, self-absorbed user!
As for Everywhere, Everything….If you read my review, you know I agree with you/ I had to force myself through it in order to write about it. And was infuriated that it snowed so many critics, and the Academy. I got a lot of flack for that review!
Yes, I could tell you were not giving this relationship your blessing. Your piece will mean more when I’ve seen the movie. And as for fights in 50-year marriages, I know a thing or two about those.
I finally watched 'May-December' and I agree with almost everything you've said here. I didn't see it as a comedy at all. I don't think I laughed once. It was a tragedy. I felt for all of them except Elizabeth. She was a predator and she didn't care. That was her angle, her strength. She could pretend to get close to them, but she knew she couldn't really or the entire project would go up in smoke. No angst on her part for deceiving them--I loved that.
I saw Joe as the main victim, with everyone, including his kids, exploiting him. He wanted to please, he couldn't articulate what he was feeling, but something was happening and if he addressed it honestly his whole world might fall apart. He had never quite grown up and now he wondered what he had missed.
Gracie, so much older, can't help but mother Joe, and when he has to console her she can't quite accept it, as she might from a man nearer her own age. She saw him as a child, perhaps unconsciously, but giving him menial chores, like setting the table, projected how unlikely it was that she'd ever see him as an equal. It was always going to be a strained relationship, and Elizabeth's prying questions gave them both reason to consider where they were in their marriage.
The performances were wonderful, with nuanced gazes and pauses taking the place of words--a choice that can often look gimmicky, but in their hands comes off beautifully.
I wish I could say the same for 'Maestro', which I watched immediately after watching May-December. I'll hold unto my comments until after you've posted about it. Can't wait to read what you thought!
Love your thoughts on “May December.” Re. “Maestro,” the main reason it’s taking me so long is the deep dive I’m taking into all things Felicia/Leonard, and my own life connections. It’s been quite an immersion!! Am giving myself one more day of background work (which I love) and then will sit down to write tomorrow. Have come to appreciate the movie more after doing this—and rewatching. But—except for Carey Mulligan’s performance—it certainly isn’t nuanced the way “May December” is.
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I did not find it funny at all. I think Todd Haynes’s genius is to leave one wrestling with whether Gracie does or does not fully grasp the awfulness of what she has done. I found the film disturbing on every level.
Susan, how strange - I watched “May December” last night and was so flummoxed by my response that I felt I needed to read a recap or reviews of the thing (I came to it cold, beyond the Netflix blurb about it being a strange “comedy”) - and then here was your post. Thank god. You did a great job of picking this apart at the same time that you gave Todd Haynes and Julianne Moore their due. I think “May December” is occasionally brilliant, those shots of vulnerable Monarch caterpillars in their cages, Moore’s ability to convey self-deception that’s both pitiable and narcissistic - but this movie is very far from a comedy, and the fact that critics, audiences, and marketing hacks have labeled it as such floors me.
You’re right that Haynes makes some missteps (miscues?), especially with the overbearing music and titles. But otherwise, the wry nods to tabloid media, unintentional cutting (and banal) dialogue, and the constant scrutiny of the woman at the center is the kind of painful wit that might make me nod or twist my lips - but laugh out loud? Nope, no way. It’s like labeling Bergman’s “Seventh Seal” as an oddball comedy about the plague.
I think I’m more literal than many film critics or the elite of Cannes, but this left me wondering where such viewers’ hearts and minds had gone. I was so disturbed by “May December” that I had to watch a bunch of sitcom repeats and still couldn’t sleep. Thanks, as always, for getting under the surface 🙏🏽
I’m with you. It was disturbing—I didn’t go into half of how I felt after watching it, because it meant revealing stuff about my own life I wasn’t prepared to in a substack post, but also because I didn’t want to go into a whole lot about the predatory nature of the “regular” news, let alone the tabloids. Maybe because I’d just done reposted some pieces about it, Diana’s death came to mind, too. In those days, at least we were capable of being appalled by the role the paparazzi played. And I, like you, was left wondering what’s going on with the critics—virtually all of the ones I read!—who see this as a “dark” comedy. I’m not even sure I know what that would look like nowadays. “Killing Eve,” maybe. But not this. (I like your phrase “painful wit” much better than “wicked comedy.”)
It feels like an increasingly weird, unraveling world, and I guess I'm out of step — except that Taylor Swift, the champion of girl power, has just been voted Time's "Person of the Year." So, maybe the non-Swiftie critics are out of step? Yes, sure – but somehow they're still controlling at least part of the media narrative. I don't see fans who embraced Taylor and "Barbie" as anywhere near the bubble of those who think "May December" is a comedy. But I guess the real bottom line is that all this stuff sells, which makes the Netflix hacks happy, regardless of appropriateness or psychological violence or sweetness and light. Painful wit indeed.
Lack of sleep makes me even more cynical than usual today :-)
I agree with you and Martha Nichols you that there is little humor in this film, not even unintentional humor. The material is just too creepy to make light of. I'm not sure why people would laugh at the card either, but I'd say it was out of a kind of embarrassment. There is plenty of tension and some terribly awkward moments, but that's not 'dark comedy'.
What it does have are brilliant performances all around.
While watching Julianne Moore, I was reminded a little of Vivian Leigh as Blanche Dubois. The roles are not 100% analogous, but there are parallels one could draw. Gracie wants so much to believe that Joe at 13 was in control, but he's no Stanley Kowalski. It was the chilling and pathetic moment when Gracie is unmasked as an abuser/predator. It also serves to mirro Elizabeth's predatory behavior.
Joe had been trying to maintain a lie of his own—his emotional armoring—that he was not a victim. These two lies dovetail, but his misconstrual is shattered when he has sex with Elizabeth. The disgust he feels has the effect of opening his eyes, so when Elizabeth says, "it's what adults do", aside from being a shitty, bitchy thing to say, it's like code for "Now you can finally grow up."
Regardless of what he says about himself Joe's victimhood is symbolized by his fascination for butterflies, and the fact that he is seduced in the pet shop, as if he were a specimen himself.
I agree that the music was a misstep. There was no reason to signal "something's wrong here" so stridently.
And by the way, seeing Oppenheimer made me rewatch Spielberg's Lincoln, which has reams of dialogue as well, but manages to pull that off better. Something to ponder.
Sorry I got to this so late! Your analysis of Joe’s battle with identifying as a victim is so good! Hard for me to see Gracie as Blanche-like, though. Maybe I need to hear more from you about that comparison.
Yes, well, as I said, the analogy is limited because the two plots are so different. The lies they maintain are flimsy constructs that become the basis of their realities, and it's what makes the characters so completely phony. They are hiding so much from the world, and what they hide from themselves is worse. Blanche, remember, was also fired from her teaching job for involvement with an under-age student. Gracie tries to justify her predation with something so ludicrous that I think it could only be born of a profound sense of guilt. Each is unmasked differently. Blanche will have her fantasy ripped to shreds by Mitch and Stanley, whereas Joe returns home and confronts Gracie in their bedroom. Gracie will also have to see her fiction as portrayed by Elizabeth, who'll undoubtedly pull no punches. This analogy does falls apart in the end though, Blanche completely breaking from reality, and Gracie locked into her duel with Elizabeth.
About that: I liked the way Haynes echoed the symmetry between them through the composition of that first shot and the wardrobe, only to break it again with the dialogue. "Insecure people are dangerous. I'm secure; make sure you put that in there." I thought a lot about that hurt look on Elizabeth's face...
I'm late responding to this, just getting some time (more this coming weekend, I hope) to catch up on your work. Great pleasure to read so skilled and insightful a reader and analyst.
I'm completely with you on May December. I came to it much less judgmental than most, to the real-life case, from a standpoint you articulate, about distrust and rejection of repressive conventional responses to the extraordinary. In that light, the film was very deeply disturbing for me, offering so many upsetting insights. I think that is the reason, as you say in different ways in different places, that people oddly label this film, and many others, comedic. It's a distancing mechanism from their own disturbance. Haynes says he sought a different distance in various ways, to open up complex reception of the circumstances and relationships -- and constructing in return a comedic response is a way of closing off the upsetting open space of that distance.
Referring to what I read of yours elsewhere, it's that same idea of repressive convention that has me responding a little differently to some elements of The Crown. I've always been completely uninterested in the British royal family. The series captured me from the start because It was, then, historical -- what does interest me. Others who liked it from the start became more critical as the present approached. I think that to be because they feel greater ownership of representations of the present, with many more small ways to feel dissatisfaction with the representation. I, feeling no such ownership on this topic, thought the quality was maintained throughout.
From the beginning, I saw Morgan developing two contrasting visions, which contradict, of course. One is the weight of history, tradition, all the rest, on anyone born into "the system," who must, as number one or mate to number one (Philip, in early seasons) be impressed with that weight of responsibility and obligation -- captured, so to speak, by its grand mission. Once so, there is almost no separation between number one and mate and the system itself (with cracks that show up, earlier, in Philip, and in the space of Elizabeth's "sacrifice.") Everyone else -- from the Duke of Windsor to Margaret to Harry, and all those attached to them -- is "spare," expendable. I think the necessarily more abbreviated depiction of the William-Harry relationship than the Elizabeth-Margaret relationship should be seen in that thematic light. Clearly Morgan didn't set out to take a hammer to the Crown, and he wanted in the end to honor that sense of Elizabeth's honorable service to her historic mission. But he offers powerful depictions throughout of the cruelty of the system to the expendables, and also to someone who needs to be brought into line -- Charles, in his youth, to whom Elizabeth is actually dramatized to say, "No one cares what you feel."
This is great. Makes me think one could write a piece weaving the two together in terms of the different (but with some overlap via press attention) forces of repression that create outsiders and deform the insiders. And I suppose there are plenty of other films that could go in that category too! Great to have you here contributing your insights, and look forward to more!
Oh yes—and thank you for that lovely compliment about my work!
I totally agree that there was little humorous in this film. I also related on a personal, visceral level, seeing parallels with women in my life and myself. The acting and direction were brilliantly focused. I think, if you were not paying attention, a bit too nuanced for many, especially if you are not living an examined life. A tragedy trying to be funny is how general media translates human stories because it's easier and quicker than truth.
Very insightful. Glad to have you in the discussion!
Thank you so much! I really enjoyed this deeply interesting analysis! It reminded me of a true story of a French high school teacher who had an affair with one of her students during the 1968 “May-June” protests! She was horribly castigated by “society”, imprisoned, I believe later committed suicide!
A movie was made of the “affair” but I never could get a hold of it to see what was made of the event. It was so satisfying to see what an excellent, compassionate understanding can be held of the situation and the characters involved in it.
I love Tod Haynes especially the film on the couple played by Julliane Moore
Thank you, Gail. I also love Haynes’s movies. And would love to see more about that French affair. My husband, who keeps u[ with things French, may know something about it.
I have followed, with deep discomfort, the true stories that inspired this movie. I once sat on a plane beside a middle-aged man who seemed to me profoundly damaged by an “affair” with a teacher who broke his heart. I will come to this movie with preconceptions that I expect to be challenged. Then I’ll return to your review. And Everything, Everwhere…? Couldn’t watch it. A lot of nothing, in my view.
I remember your post about that young man! I do think this movie shows how much damage the relationship has done to Charlie—in a much more disturbing way than simple moral condemnation; there’s a scene between him and Gracie in which he tries to tell her that, and she shuts him down. But he’s changed from the boy he was, and it’s not at all clear what the future holds for him and Gracie.I hope my review doesn’t suggest this is a good, healthy relationship! And I’ll be very interested to know what you think of it. I liked it because it shows, too, that there are other predators besides Gracie. Elizabeth—what an exploitative, self-absorbed user!
As for Everywhere, Everything….If you read my review, you know I agree with you/ I had to force myself through it in order to write about it. And was infuriated that it snowed so many critics, and the Academy. I got a lot of flack for that review!
Yes, I could tell you were not giving this relationship your blessing. Your piece will mean more when I’ve seen the movie. And as for fights in 50-year marriages, I know a thing or two about those.
I finally watched 'May-December' and I agree with almost everything you've said here. I didn't see it as a comedy at all. I don't think I laughed once. It was a tragedy. I felt for all of them except Elizabeth. She was a predator and she didn't care. That was her angle, her strength. She could pretend to get close to them, but she knew she couldn't really or the entire project would go up in smoke. No angst on her part for deceiving them--I loved that.
I saw Joe as the main victim, with everyone, including his kids, exploiting him. He wanted to please, he couldn't articulate what he was feeling, but something was happening and if he addressed it honestly his whole world might fall apart. He had never quite grown up and now he wondered what he had missed.
Gracie, so much older, can't help but mother Joe, and when he has to console her she can't quite accept it, as she might from a man nearer her own age. She saw him as a child, perhaps unconsciously, but giving him menial chores, like setting the table, projected how unlikely it was that she'd ever see him as an equal. It was always going to be a strained relationship, and Elizabeth's prying questions gave them both reason to consider where they were in their marriage.
The performances were wonderful, with nuanced gazes and pauses taking the place of words--a choice that can often look gimmicky, but in their hands comes off beautifully.
I wish I could say the same for 'Maestro', which I watched immediately after watching May-December. I'll hold unto my comments until after you've posted about it. Can't wait to read what you thought!
Love your thoughts on “May December.” Re. “Maestro,” the main reason it’s taking me so long is the deep dive I’m taking into all things Felicia/Leonard, and my own life connections. It’s been quite an immersion!! Am giving myself one more day of background work (which I love) and then will sit down to write tomorrow. Have come to appreciate the movie more after doing this—and rewatching. But—except for Carey Mulligan’s performance—it certainly isn’t nuanced the way “May December” is.
i watched the trailer for May December and thought "Meh" but after reading your thoughts on it, Susan, I think I will give it a whirl.
Let me know what you think after you’ve seen it.
I will, thanks Susan! 😊
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I did not find it funny at all. I think Todd Haynes’s genius is to leave one wrestling with whether Gracie does or does not fully grasp the awfulness of what she has done. I found the film disturbing on every level.