I look at gender politics in original versions of “Presumed Innocent” (book and movie) and “Fatal Attraction” alongside currently streaming remake of “Presumed Innocent” (no finale spoilers!)
The series has been very strange, and your analysis has helped me think about it. thanks. I just want Rusty to be found guilty even if he didn’t do the murder because he’s an insufferable prick. Barbara and the kids’ roles are so inconsistent, with no connective tissue to explain the swings for/against Rusty. It’s like 90% of the creative effort went into writing Rusty’s character and all of the other actors are meant to do what they can with mere sketches that change as the plot needs them to. They have serious acting talent in the series, but still it’s a hot mess.
Your recap of the late 1980s brought back vivid memories of women’s roles professionally and in the culture. Susan Faludi’s Backlash was so important to me when it came out. Until I read it, I’d been mystified why supposedly liberal men were blind to their own artistic and cultural misogyny. I’d been thinking something was wrong with me, when I wasn’t paid the same as a man doing my job (and the boss was a woman). That book helped me come to grips with how progress works.
So, a project to bring Turow’s book into the 21st century has to be fraught. They made a stylish series with beautiful actors but the premise is flawed. It all starts with the victim and she’s unknowable, because Rusty never bothered to understand her as a person, rather than as desire. I can’t imagine how they can tie it up satisfactorily in the remaining episode.
I thought the Fatal Attraction series was a mess. The movie became iconic, and you're right to point out how awful they made the Glenn Close character. I didn't realize that they shot a new ending giving her the horror monster death treatment.
I agree with you about Rusty and Barbara. He's awful and is unable to control himself in any way. He does not seem like a good lawyer. Barbara is much more sympathetic. I do wonder why she's so forgiving!
The third movie that seems to me to belong with these other two is Unfaithful with Diane Lane and Richard Gere, although that was 2002. An affair leads to tragedy. Other than that, i'm not sure why i group it with these other two.
Yeah, “Fatal Attraction” series was indeed a hot mess.
I wouldn’t put “Unfaithful” in with them because the woman isn’t a temptress and the husband is the murderer. And the woman’s sexual subjectivity is focused on (I kinda love that scene in the train) rather than just turning her into a familiar caricature. I think the reason it comes to your mind is because like the others it’s a morality tale about a steamy sexual affair and it has a murder. And its highly sexualized and moody “atmosphere” is similar. And then, too, there’s the title!!
Susan, as always, I love the way you dig in, and I really appreciate your nod to Susan Faludi’s *Backlash* - I’m skipping the current remake of “Presumed Innocent,” and you’ve reinforced my gut feeling that it would do nothing to rehabilitate the sexy, man-eating Carolyn of the book. At least that Carolyn *was* sexy, even if Rusty was an agonized, sexist fool - and seeing it unfold from his POV in the written narrative makes clear his take on her is limited. He’s the unreliable narrator supreme.
I remember really liking Turow’s novel at the time it came out and being wowed by the quality of writing in a legal thriller. In many ways, Turow fueled that whole genre and seeded many a procedural TV show about the law, cops, and murky politics. I’m sure some of the book doesn’t hold up now, but the machinations of Cook County and scruffy city politics hooked me and continued to hook me in later books by Turow (in some of which Sandy Stern, one of his best characters, figured strongly - if he’s been cut from the new series, that’s yet another bone-headed decision).
It would be great if Carolyn Polhemus could be portrayed as you do Anne Boleyn: smart, sexy, vital, strategic etc. rather than as an overly ambitious, craven witch. How do we determine who gets to be ambitious, anyway, or who plays the political game? That’s only sort of a rhetorical question. Here’s the remake of *Presumed Innocent*, both book and film, I’d like to see: alternating chapters (scenes) from Carolyn and Rusty’s POV, with no 2024 airbrushing away of racial and gender dynamics. That might take us into far deeper waters regarding ambition, selfishness, passion, and a longing to be the good person everyone expects you to be.
Actually, Carolyn is the ONLY character in the new series that wasn’t a nauseating throwback. Not at all like the ambitious temptress of the novel and movie. But at the same time, she wasn’t much of anything. They take away the temptress—which I agree does bring some pleasure, from the sexiness—and there’s just a void. I like your idea better! (BTW, I also had the same response to the novel when I first read it. Second time around: too much male existential/sexual angst.)
I’m rereading the book. Just started. The character Sandy Stern not in the current remake. Of course I remembered the Jewish character. Anyway your writing on this is very interesting. Barbara of 2024 sure seems like a throwback. A doormat of another age. Making her Black doesn’t change that. Pure superficiality.
Right. They do that a lot, don’t they? “Update” by making the characters/families mixed race. I wonder why they got rid of Sandy, who was a great character in the book and movie (played by Raoul Julia.)
I’ll be interested to know what you think of the book. The second time around, I got irritated with it at many points, and found the ending very belabored.
Ok I’ll keep you posted on that. Initial impression. Much more densely written and in general better written than legal thrillers today. Was supposed to be more than an airplane reading experience!
Susan my wife and I finished your book The Creation of Anne Boleyn and found it nuanced and accessible and very enjoyable. Much to say but Anne becomes real and able rather than the caricature of the seductress you talk about here. Bravo!
So the finale of “Presumed Innocent” dropped yesterday, bringing relief and joy to the hearts of those who think feminism, etc. has shattered the sacred unity of the nuclear family. Rusty, previous appearances to the contrary, is really a wonderful guy who risked his own imprisonment in order to cover up for (what he thought) was his wife’s Barbara’s murder of his mistress. Their daughter, who actually did murder Carolyn (that’s the series “twist” on the book and 1990 movie, in which Barbara actually was the killer) appears to have suffered no post-traumatic effects from smashing the brains out of another person. Barbara, although briefly horrified by the revelation (Negga’s best acting in the season,) has forgiven Rusty everything—and apparently forgotten that he said numerous times (in texts and on the stand) that he had been desperately in love with Carolyn, basically stalked her, and begged her to spend the rest of her life with him. And they are all having a warm and laughter-filled breakfast together.
In the comments is a link to this week’s stack, which deliberately withheld the ending of book (Rusty and Barbara split up, something which some viewers, were wishing would happen in the series) and movie (“I know I’m a prosecutor who believes in bringing the guilty to justice, but I can’t rob my son of his mother”)
I know where I think this series belongs in the trajectory of gender politics. What do you think?
Awful - that’s what I think, Susan. I’m also very glad I didn’t watch the series. The ending in the original book made emotional sense within the context of the gender politics of the day. And in Turow’s subsequent Cook County books, Rusty is world-weary, sometimes unlikable, and certainly not unscathed by his part in the whole thing. But him as a patriarchal hero protecting his family? That never played for me, and now, as you describe it, the Stain of Woman - you know, Eve grabbing that apple - carries down the generations. Ugh.
Barbara’s ambivalence is human, but doesn’t work for me in this series. She comes across as wishy-washy and a throwback. It would have helped the character if she had slept with the bartender, and it would have made her more human.
The series has been very strange, and your analysis has helped me think about it. thanks. I just want Rusty to be found guilty even if he didn’t do the murder because he’s an insufferable prick. Barbara and the kids’ roles are so inconsistent, with no connective tissue to explain the swings for/against Rusty. It’s like 90% of the creative effort went into writing Rusty’s character and all of the other actors are meant to do what they can with mere sketches that change as the plot needs them to. They have serious acting talent in the series, but still it’s a hot mess.
Your recap of the late 1980s brought back vivid memories of women’s roles professionally and in the culture. Susan Faludi’s Backlash was so important to me when it came out. Until I read it, I’d been mystified why supposedly liberal men were blind to their own artistic and cultural misogyny. I’d been thinking something was wrong with me, when I wasn’t paid the same as a man doing my job (and the boss was a woman). That book helped me come to grips with how progress works.
So, a project to bring Turow’s book into the 21st century has to be fraught. They made a stylish series with beautiful actors but the premise is flawed. It all starts with the victim and she’s unknowable, because Rusty never bothered to understand her as a person, rather than as desire. I can’t imagine how they can tie it up satisfactorily in the remaining episode.
Great comments. I don’t think I’ve seen you here before. Welcome!! And I hope you’ll continue to contribute your insights.
The remake of “Fatal Attractions” was a hot mess, too. They should probably leave the iconic 80’s movies alone.
I love these deep dives, Susan.
I thought the Fatal Attraction series was a mess. The movie became iconic, and you're right to point out how awful they made the Glenn Close character. I didn't realize that they shot a new ending giving her the horror monster death treatment.
I agree with you about Rusty and Barbara. He's awful and is unable to control himself in any way. He does not seem like a good lawyer. Barbara is much more sympathetic. I do wonder why she's so forgiving!
The third movie that seems to me to belong with these other two is Unfaithful with Diane Lane and Richard Gere, although that was 2002. An affair leads to tragedy. Other than that, i'm not sure why i group it with these other two.
Yeah, “Fatal Attraction” series was indeed a hot mess.
I wouldn’t put “Unfaithful” in with them because the woman isn’t a temptress and the husband is the murderer. And the woman’s sexual subjectivity is focused on (I kinda love that scene in the train) rather than just turning her into a familiar caricature. I think the reason it comes to your mind is because like the others it’s a morality tale about a steamy sexual affair and it has a murder. And its highly sexualized and moody “atmosphere” is similar. And then, too, there’s the title!!
Susan, as always, I love the way you dig in, and I really appreciate your nod to Susan Faludi’s *Backlash* - I’m skipping the current remake of “Presumed Innocent,” and you’ve reinforced my gut feeling that it would do nothing to rehabilitate the sexy, man-eating Carolyn of the book. At least that Carolyn *was* sexy, even if Rusty was an agonized, sexist fool - and seeing it unfold from his POV in the written narrative makes clear his take on her is limited. He’s the unreliable narrator supreme.
I remember really liking Turow’s novel at the time it came out and being wowed by the quality of writing in a legal thriller. In many ways, Turow fueled that whole genre and seeded many a procedural TV show about the law, cops, and murky politics. I’m sure some of the book doesn’t hold up now, but the machinations of Cook County and scruffy city politics hooked me and continued to hook me in later books by Turow (in some of which Sandy Stern, one of his best characters, figured strongly - if he’s been cut from the new series, that’s yet another bone-headed decision).
It would be great if Carolyn Polhemus could be portrayed as you do Anne Boleyn: smart, sexy, vital, strategic etc. rather than as an overly ambitious, craven witch. How do we determine who gets to be ambitious, anyway, or who plays the political game? That’s only sort of a rhetorical question. Here’s the remake of *Presumed Innocent*, both book and film, I’d like to see: alternating chapters (scenes) from Carolyn and Rusty’s POV, with no 2024 airbrushing away of racial and gender dynamics. That might take us into far deeper waters regarding ambition, selfishness, passion, and a longing to be the good person everyone expects you to be.
Actually, Carolyn is the ONLY character in the new series that wasn’t a nauseating throwback. Not at all like the ambitious temptress of the novel and movie. But at the same time, she wasn’t much of anything. They take away the temptress—which I agree does bring some pleasure, from the sexiness—and there’s just a void. I like your idea better! (BTW, I also had the same response to the novel when I first read it. Second time around: too much male existential/sexual angst.)
Cool! Thanks for doing this. Yeh I find Rusty in tne current series just hateful. And I keep hoping Barbara just packs a bag and leaves him.
In the book they do split up.
I’m rereading the book. Just started. The character Sandy Stern not in the current remake. Of course I remembered the Jewish character. Anyway your writing on this is very interesting. Barbara of 2024 sure seems like a throwback. A doormat of another age. Making her Black doesn’t change that. Pure superficiality.
Right. They do that a lot, don’t they? “Update” by making the characters/families mixed race. I wonder why they got rid of Sandy, who was a great character in the book and movie (played by Raoul Julia.)
I’ll be interested to know what you think of the book. The second time around, I got irritated with it at many points, and found the ending very belabored.
Ok I’ll keep you posted on that. Initial impression. Much more densely written and in general better written than legal thrillers today. Was supposed to be more than an airplane reading experience!
I was surprised by that too. So I looked up Turow’s bio and discovered he was a lit prof before he got his law degree.
Susan my wife and I finished your book The Creation of Anne Boleyn and found it nuanced and accessible and very enjoyable. Much to say but Anne becomes real and able rather than the caricature of the seductress you talk about here. Bravo!
Thanks so much! I loved researching and writing that book.
So the finale of “Presumed Innocent” dropped yesterday, bringing relief and joy to the hearts of those who think feminism, etc. has shattered the sacred unity of the nuclear family. Rusty, previous appearances to the contrary, is really a wonderful guy who risked his own imprisonment in order to cover up for (what he thought) was his wife’s Barbara’s murder of his mistress. Their daughter, who actually did murder Carolyn (that’s the series “twist” on the book and 1990 movie, in which Barbara actually was the killer) appears to have suffered no post-traumatic effects from smashing the brains out of another person. Barbara, although briefly horrified by the revelation (Negga’s best acting in the season,) has forgiven Rusty everything—and apparently forgotten that he said numerous times (in texts and on the stand) that he had been desperately in love with Carolyn, basically stalked her, and begged her to spend the rest of her life with him. And they are all having a warm and laughter-filled breakfast together.
In the comments is a link to this week’s stack, which deliberately withheld the ending of book (Rusty and Barbara split up, something which some viewers, were wishing would happen in the series) and movie (“I know I’m a prosecutor who believes in bringing the guilty to justice, but I can’t rob my son of his mother”)
I know where I think this series belongs in the trajectory of gender politics. What do you think?
Awful - that’s what I think, Susan. I’m also very glad I didn’t watch the series. The ending in the original book made emotional sense within the context of the gender politics of the day. And in Turow’s subsequent Cook County books, Rusty is world-weary, sometimes unlikable, and certainly not unscathed by his part in the whole thing. But him as a patriarchal hero protecting his family? That never played for me, and now, as you describe it, the Stain of Woman - you know, Eve grabbing that apple - carries down the generations. Ugh.
Barbara’s ambivalence is human, but doesn’t work for me in this series. She comes across as wishy-washy and a throwback. It would have helped the character if she had slept with the bartender, and it would have made her more human.
100% agree.