MARGARET: It is interminable and twee and unbelievably self-indulgent and the trouble is that much as you want to enjoy this character I just found I couldn't. I found it - I couldn't understand why she abruptly breaks up her marriage to begin with.
DAVID: No. That put me off right from the start because the husband seemed so...
MARGARET: ... and she caused a lot of hurt in the process and, oh, she's going off to discover herself and it sort of immediately sets up a tremendously selfish motive.
DAVID: It's a me, me, me film.
MARGARET: And I should sympathise with this woman more but - I tried to read the book and I actually couldn't.
DAVID: Ah, okay.
MARGARET: So I'm a bit with you on this.
DAVID: So I don't feel so bad not having read the book?
MARGARET: No. No, don't feel guilty. Not that you ever would.
DAVID: Not that I would, no.
MARGARET: Look, I'm giving this two and a half stars.
DAVID: Oh, really? Okay, well, I'm giving it one and a half.
Now, I would never dispute their right to have an opinion. And it is a very esteemed opinion at that. But here exists a clash - a clash of pre-ordained judgments of the film and the film failing to address those inevitable preconceptions in its storyline. What I mean to say is that
Eat Pray Love was always going a film that would be heavily criticised. It is, after all, now considered a cliché for women "finding themselves", and Liz's journey is often made light of, sometimes in a nasty way.
This column by Karen Brooks, for example, is particularly scathing.
It is clear to me that David and Margaret saw the film with the impression that it would be a bit of a self-indulgent joke. And that impression has been fulfilled, to the tee. The film DOES portray Liz as selfish and delusional. Her husband seems eccentric and perhaps a little selfish himself... but, of course, that is not reason enough to leave somebody and cause them so much hurt and pain. So of course David and Margaret think that Liz is utterly self-centred, and therefore deemed the rest of the film completely frivolous and worthless. Because the insensitivity and superficiality with which the divorce was dealt cheapened the journey itself.
The thing is, the divorce was glossed over in the book as well. But not because Liz made her decision to leave her husband lightly. It was out of respect to him; she did not want to delve into their marriage breakdown at all. She just made clear that she had loved him dearly, but she was desperately unhappy. It was not only his fault, nor was it hers. Well, in actual fact, they were both to blame. And the gulf between them simply could not be bridged. It was over.
Despite that, Liz details the
pain of the divorce in excruciating detail. The divorce spanned over two years. He refused to acquiese, no matter how much she bequeathed him. (
This is her ex-husband, by the way. Word has it that he also took off after the divorce was finalised, traveling through the Middle East providing aid to the needy. No need to judge whose journey was more noble... but he seems to be a good person.) Liz spiraled into a deep depression which, despite her best efforts, could only be curbed by medication. The film-makers clearly decided not to cover that ground. I understand their decision, I suppose. They wanted to make a feel-good, inspirational film, and launch into the eating, praying and loving as soon as possible - which is so much more fun than heartache and depression.
By avoiding the melodrama of the book, however, the film presented as Liz's story as shallow. What on earth did they hope to achieve by the ridiculous divorce settlement scene, for example? Was it supposed to be humorous? Because all it did was make divorce seem like some sort of selfish bourgeoisie game. Which it is not. It is difficult, hurtful and incredibly sad. So, with all that in mind, it is natural that people who did not read, understand or relate to the book find the movie excruciating.
Please know that I am totally aware of the fact that screenwriters need to condense an entire book into a relatively short film, and that many nuances will be left by the wayside. Of course that is inevitable. But since that is the case, it should have been that the screenwriters had the foresight to realise that they would never be able to capture the complexity of a marriage within a few short minutes. And so they should have, quite rightfully, glossed over it. But with sensitivity. With the message that: "This was painful. This was hard. Whether or not it was the right thing to do, we will never know, but Liz was desperately unhappy and, after trying and trying to make it work, she did the best thing she could do for herself, and for her husband."
Okay. So I know that I am no professional screenwriter. In fact, I know absolutely nothing about it. Except that I watch films. And I like Elizabeth Gilbert. I don't like it when people criticise and don't offer a viable solution. So, for those EPL afficionados out there (for I know many of you exist, even if you won't admit it), here is my ideal exposition.... I would start with the famous bathroom scene. Where Liz is desperately asking God what on earth to do, because she doesn't want to be married anymore. That scene would reveal the gravity of her pain. With no need for explanations or justifications. Then go to Bali. Meet Ketut. Then tell her husband she is leaving him. I wouldn't have made him a character, as such. More of a shadowy being to represent Liz's intense unhappiness and dissatisfaction with her life. (Somewhat like the opening scenes of Antonioni's
L'Eclisse... for film buffs.)
That's it. I think those three scenes would be enough. Then they could have launched into all the fun yummy stuff, like her love affair with bedroom-eyed David, traipsing through the streets of Rome, finding clarity in India, bicycling through the Balinese jungle and making love to Penelope Cruz's husband. Because that is all perfectly lovely and heart-lifting. But without the underlying backstory - without the journey from one state of being to another, which was the whole rationale behind the trip in the first place - it just has no meaning. The audience cannot be truly happy for their protagonist, because there is nothing to validate the transformation she undertakes. All we see is an incredibly beautiful woman sweeping from one privileged life to the next, from one loving man into the arms of another... and another. Why on earth should we care?
So that is my first review. What did you think of the movie? Have you read the book? I would love to hear your opinions!
