Brief movie review: The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

I don't remember the 'original' movie of this name, but I'd heard repeatedly that the remake was better than the original.  As someone who often wonders why some artist has done a 'cover' of a hit from bygone days, since they've brought nothing new to the work, I am often equally suspicious of remakes of movies.   The ones I've seen mostly haven't worked for me: City of Angels for Wings of Desire, the remake of Miracle on 34th Street, or Sabrina -- not even close the magic of the originals.  But for this one, I can only take it on its own merits.

And it merits as one of the most solidly entertaining pieces of new Hollywood work I've seen in a long time.  Imagine: two strong, independent, smart 40-somethings that risk all on love, and have some great sex at the same time.  A rare occurence indeed.

It was particularly interesting as the female protagonist (played by Renee Russo) could only be seen as a 'difficult woman' (See journal entry to the right).  And while Pierce Brosnan has yet to match his performance in Remington Steele (in my opinion), he sure looks good, is wonderfully cast as a man who is too smart for his own good, and finally meets his match in more ways than one.  See this one; it's fun!

I had occasion today to spend time with two interesting, funny, somewhat powerful, very smart women. One is recently separated, soon to be divorced, the other always single.  They were despairing the dearth of available, straight, interesting men.  One is in her mid-30s, the other in her early 40s.  Either one of them, for my money, is great company, and a woman worth living with. 

Each was especially despairing of her fate because neither felt she was "easy to live with".  That resonated for me, big-time.  I grew up, hearing from my mother, "You aren't the easiest person to live with, but you are one of the most worth while."  So, I've known for a long time that I was a "difficult woman". These women know the same, although I didn't ask how long they'd known and how they'd found out. I will ask them, when next I get a chance to chat personally with each of them.

I know some smart, funny women who I wouldn't describe as 'difficult women'.  Of course, I also don't know them all that well.  Something tells me that any woman with a sharp mind, enough drive and at least professional self-esteem to become successful in her field, and with a sense of humour intended to make survival possible and more fun, if one knew her well enough, would fit into the category of 'difficult women'. 

I am beginning to hypothesize that being a woman and being successful is bound to make one 'difficult', since the mixed messages that we have heard most of our lives are bound to create conflict within us.  (The same may be true for men; I leave it to the men to ponder these questions with the paradigm of the mixed messages they received.)  How can we go out 'there', be competent and strong, and take more control over our lives and perhaps our organizations, be leaders in our sector, without violating some of the norms of 'femininity', for example. 

It's true that we had a generation of women before us as role models.  But they were small in number, and each was treated as an exception, her circumstances seen as individual, and few patterns emerged.  By now, there should be patterns.  And perhaps there are.  Perhaps one of the characteristics of women out there doing it is that we're all 'difficult'.

What do I mean by difficult?  I mean that we are filled with competing wishes and desires.  We have quiet sides that crave being nurtured and the knowledge that exposing that vulnerability is bound to make us seem less competent, and may even undermine our own strength.  We want to change the world, and not have to change the men in our lives.  We want recognition of our particular circumstances as women in what are still largely male domains, without being seen as needing 'special treatment' to do what we do, and do damned well, thank you very much.

And where are the men for 'difficult women'?  I remember when I was starting to feel ready to look around, I had the sense that all the women I knew were mated, and the men were too, or they were gay and still looking.  The women I spoke with today said the same is true of the men, but they see more available women than they used to.  More competition, they sometimes fear, while recognizing the company of sisterhood, of like people in like situations.

My life partner tells me that the difficulty these women having finding mates says a great deal more about the inadequacies of men than the particular challenges the women pose, but I suspect it's a distinction without a real difference.   If men are looking for women who are less challenging, less competitive for the limelight, women who are more likely to put them at the centre of their universe, then these women are still facing a dearth of partners for them.  Who cares who is responsible?

I empathize with these women.  I have been among them.   We can't pretend to be less 'difficult' than we are, without denying our strengths and our achievements.  Yet, it seems that we can't find life partners if we don't pretend.  But pretense isn't the answer.  And being alone isn't an adequate answer either.  Perhaps patience, persistence, and focus -- the same things we bring to our professional lives -- are the answer.  That and men who understand the value of 'difficult women'.

Next entry

Archived entries