Review of Fatal Attraction (1987) by Edith N — 16 Jan 2010

An Interesting Psychoanalysis of Modern Man.

Every once in a while, I end up stuck explaining to males of my acquaintance exactly why women think so many films and so forth are sexist. It only really seems to clear things up about half the time, though whether that's a consequence of my explanation or their own prejudices, but I think we're accomplishing something just by getting it into the open. All that said, for all I distrust the sexual politics of this film, I would not use it as a prime example. This despite the fact that the man in the movie would not have been expected to have suffered any consequences for the affair had it not been with a crazy woman. In part, however, this is because it's too obvious. Far too obvious. The fact that the psychiatrists Glenn Close consulted about the case made it quite clear that the most logical reason for her character's behaviour would be mistreatment, serious and horrible mistreatment, by a man in her childhood is never established, because we are seeing it from a male perspective. Indeed, if I were to point out the sexism in this movie, it would be more interesting to analyze the other main female character, who is such a cipher that I have to look up her name.

Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) is just an ordinary guy. Well, except not--he's a successful lawyer who lives in one of those improbably spacious Manhattan apartments but is in the process of moving out into the country to commute into the city instead. One weekend, his wife, who turns out to be named Beth (Ann Gallagher), and child, Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen), go off house-hunting, leaving Dan alone for the weekend. After a meeting at the publishing company he does work for, he goes out to dinner with Alex Forrest (Close), an assistant editor there who is never shown to have anything to do with work again. The two of them have a torrid weekend affair, almost seeming to have more sex than is biologically probable. At any rate, Dan is open with Alex about the fact that he is married, that he has no intention of leaving his wife, that he has no intention of continuing the affair. Whatever else his flaws, there is that. On the other hand, Alex is having none of that. It starts small, but when she discovers she's pregnant, it gets more serious very quickly. How serious becomes so well known that I am about to discuss the ending without worrying about spoilers, so be warned.

The fact is, the ending is dumb. Oh, not as dumb as it could be, but dumb enough so that I felt any suspense ruined as soon as Alex entered the bathroom. Somehow, she gets into a locked house without Dan's hearing her, because he's so busy making tea, known to be a very loud and distracting activity. Suddenly, she's just there in the bathroom, attacking Beth. She's waving around that ginormous knife, and for the longest, Beth doesn't fight back. Her child has been threatened. Her marriage has been threatened. She herself has been, is being, threatened, and she's not even trying. It can't be that she doesn't know Alex is perfectly inclined to kill her, given half a chance--and she has more than half a chance here. Far more. But no, it takes the man bursting in to do anything about it. He half-strangles, half-drowns Alex. And, as we know, she then gets up again. And he shoots her. Now, leaving aside the dreary horror-flick nature of her getting up out of the bathtub, which is awfully dreary, where did the gun come from? It's never, so far as I can tell, been mentioned before, and even if it had, why didn't he use it? Why didn't Beth use it? Surely it would have been simpler, if not so dramatic, and if what we're interested in is the drama, why kill it using such a trite dramatic device?

Of course, there wouldn't be much of a movie were Alex healthy. However, there is an interesting seed of a story there for all that; Alex is, after all, pregnant. Since she mentions having had a bad miscarriage the year before, though the father of the child is nonexistent, it is reasonable to assume that she would wish to keep the baby. Another movie might be made about such a circumstance. What responsibility would Dan bear to the child? Possibly an argument could be made that hormones exacerbated the situation of an already unwell woman, but what might a healthy woman feel and do? Probably Beth would still have to be told about the affair, but perhaps not. As it stands, Dan seems to have no interest in telling her until their lives are in danger. It was just one of those things, really. The single Alex may do as she pleases; the married Dan just needs a little adventure. Despite Dan's married status, the film can still be seen as a treatise on the fear of commitment. After all, Alex herself points out that Dan all but runs out of her bed. Twice. He has to go off and live a life without women, after all.

Oh, it would be quite easy to overanalyze such a piece of escapist fluff. However, I think it can be underanalyzed as well. After all, Beth never seems terribly interested in leaving. Ellen is so androgynous that I thought she was a boy for large amounts of the movie. (A boy watching [i]You Can't Do That on Television[/i], no less! At that, a scene where Christine gets slimed repeatedly.) Dan moves in a very masculine world. Most of the women are secretaries, babysitters, or waitresses, with a few teachers as well. They are all--sorry, teachers--in positions subservient to a masculine world, one where women are unimportant to men's concerns. Beth and Ellen get out of the way at just the right--or, really, wrong--moment, so that Dan can go out and not be part of the family for a while. Only Alex tells him that she loves him and is going to have his baby. He can't dispose of her. The past won't stay past, and the fling won't stay a fling. He is unable to dispose of his burdens, even though he does spend more time working than Alex does.