Is The Graduate ruined for me?

I was watching The Graduate for probably the 25th time last weekend. 

It’s always been on my top 10 list of films.  And not only because, like its protagonist, I was also a confused 20-year-old boy-man who graduated college early and had yet to have sex with anyone.

Benjamin vibes

Did I just admit that publicly?  Well, if that’s the worst thing you can say about me…

In any event – Mike Nichols’ direction; the performances by Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft; the funny, squirmy, ring of truth screenplay by Buck Henry and Calder Willingham based on Charles Webb’s novel.  And so much more.  It ALL works.

Doesn’t it?

Sure does

Well, it did for me.  The first 24 times.  Until last week when I was stopped dead in my tracks by one of its most potent sequences.

It’s about 15-20 minutes in when the sensuously seductive, middle-aged and married Mrs. Robinson coerces young Benjamin into driving her home and then condescendingly intimidates him into walking her inside her house and up the stairs to see her daughter’s portrait because she’s “afraid to be alone.” 

Do people even get portraits done anymore?

Upstairs and in her daughter’s room, Benjamin’s now a nervous wreck, but, well, at least this is almost over.  Until she begins to get undressed for bed, at which point he runs down the stairs to leave and she calls down to him, demanding he bring up her purse and put it back on the bed in her daughter’s room.

Which he does.  Cause that’s what guys like us do.

At which point he turns and sees her quickly re-enter fully naked, lock the door to prevent him from leaving and stand boldly in front of him.  She then declares – in a measured but very definitive voice – she is available to sleep with and that if he won’t do it now he should call her any time, day or night and they will make arrangements. It’s not a seduction so much as a challenge, bordering on a demand.

oh it’s awkward

Never mind Mrs. Robinson is a long-time family friend and that her husband is his father’s long-time business partner. Or – creep alert – that she’s known since his toddler years.   It doesn’t matter to her.  One bit. 

Except to him it does.

And Mrs. Robinson knows that.  Because as she stares him down, still in front of that locked door, she demands he tell her he understands not only what she is saying but what she really means.  And by her tone, it’s clear she won’t take no for answer.

If only Benjamin had this gif to express himself

Benjamin begins to stammer, sighs deeply and, in a desperate panic, finally says the words.  At which point he pushes her naked torso out of the way, there’s a closeup of his fumbling hands unlocking that door, and he runs all the way down the stairs and out of the house in panic.

We don’t see Mrs. Robinson’s reaction to his exit but all through the scenes leading up to this climactic (Note: Though not quite. Not yet.) moment she smirks, lies, manipulates and even gently laughs at him.  She’s confident this kid will soon be intrigued and very likely tempted.  After all, she knows she’s eye candy to any man, especially a boy-man who is lucky enough to get a full-frontal, closeup view of her in the actual flesh.  She’s doing HIM a favor.  Trapped or not and whether he likes it or not. 

But…how could he not like it???

Oh Mrs. Robinson

This is how it read to me in 2024, a time when I am long past my twenties and far more experienced than I ever dreamed I’d be all those years ago.

The predatory behavior.  Exposing yourself to an inexperienced minor (Note: It wasn’t until the early 1970s that the age of consent was changed from 21 to 18) in a room you lock from the inside.  Not letting them leave until they either have sex with you or verbally, and convincingly, say they will consider it at some future date.

Some might consider it potentially traumatizing.  If not downright abusive.  Or even illegal.

Me now thinking about The Graduate

Of course, in 1967 this was not only acceptable but a key factor in making the film one of the biggest box-office and critical hits of the decade.  Benjamin was considered a lucky guy and Mrs. Robinson was thought of as a MILF (Note: A today term, but apt) doing him an, ahem, solid.  

A neurotic mess when she locked that door, he would even continue to be a few sequences later when they check into a hotel room together.  That is until he resists immediately f-king her once inside and she begins to laugh at him – and then accuses him of being gay.

That does it.  He turns the lights out and it’s game on.

Diving into the deep end

It took all that effort and all those “insults” for him to become a man.  A guy who only months later would have the nerve to date her daughter and treat her shabbily, then decide he’s fallen in love with her even though she hates him, and then go all out and finally manage to convince her to marry him.

What could go ever wrong?

Absolutely nothing!

Thanks to Mrs. Robinson, Benjamin will NEVER need therapy.  Not only that, he has finally found the stones to stand up for himself and get what and who he wants against all odds. 

As all real men do.

A few questions to consider:

  • What would we have said if Benjamin were Belinda and MR. Robinson locked HER in a room and exposed HIMSELF?  Likely, that would not have been considered a good thing then or now.   But if we kept the sexes of Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson intact?  Do we think any differently about it, even today? 
  • How about if Benjamin didn’t respond to all that pressure and was impotent with Mrs. Robinson that first time in their hotel room because he was simply nervous?  What’s the aftermath?  Or his next move in the dating pool?  And, well, how would that go?
That would be a very different movie!
  • Or imagine a gay but closeted Benjamin in 1967.  Would all this have changed him into believing he was straight?  Or added yet another level of self-hatred to his pitiful secret desires?  Perhaps it would immediately force him out of the closet simply to prove something.  And what exactly would the result have been back then?

Revisiting a socially liberal, though seemingly apolitical classic like The Graduate and realizing it doesn’t fully hold up to contemporary morality, doesn’t mean we were all wrong about it.  Nor does it detract from its craft, its humor, its insightfulness or its fine performances.  It simply gives new perspectives on human behavior.  And enlightens us on the nuances of consent and the dynamics of power.

Get that Mr. Gladstone?

TCM host and film scholar Jacqueline Stewart wrote about Gone With The Wind in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and America’s new, imperfect reckoning with race.  While others called for it to be pulled off the MAX platform, she instead wrote an introduction to contextualize it and led a filmed discussion for viewers who wanted to revisit it and see classic cinema for its flaws as well as its greatness.

She notes GWTW glorifies a system of brutality (e.g. slavery) and downplays the inhumane treatment of African people in a way that has shaped Americans’ understanding of race.  But elaborates that given its enduring popularity the answer is not to ban it altogether but rather use its allure as a way to educate ourselves…The ability to complicate the pleasure we get from these works…puts us in a position of having more meaningful discussions about them.

Hurray for context!

On that note, there is a riveting documentary/play/movie that was just launched on MAX this weekend called, Slave Play.  Not A Movie.  A Play.  Directed by Jeremy O. Harris, who wrote the provocative, and much acclaimed theatre piece, Slave Play, whose Broadway production received 12 Tony nominations several years ago, it’s a unique offering. 

In under two hours, we get to see very dramatic, whole sections of various incarnations of the show from early workshopping to Broadway excerpts, as well as staged scenes Mr. Harris directed at the Yale Drama School. 

A lot to unpack here!

More importantly, it contextualizes not only issues of race but queerness, love, marriage and yes, consent, in ways most of us have likely not ever considered or connected before. 

If I told you that you would get to see period Civil War era scenes of a Southern white woman order her mulatto slave to have sex with her; a Black gay man humiliate his gay, white trash partner; or a Civil War overseer refuse to beat a Black female slave even though she urges him on, you might well say – um, that’s not for me. 

But in actuality, that’s what Mr. Harris wants you to say.  And think.

Worth a watch

So he can then pull the rug out from under you mid-way through and let you know what this is all really about.

It’s insight that can happen when those of us who watch movies, television and theatre – the old, the recent and the new –  get to see them through a contemporary gaze.  When we don’t shut our minds off but instead open them up to all types of material and ways of thinking we failed to consider previously or perhaps never could have imagined.

Simon and Garfunkel – “Mrs. Robinson”

Aunt Lydia Alito and the New Brat Pack

Wealth, power, fame and success have their many upsides but clearly they DO NOT make you significantly happier. 

If they did we would not have so many aggrieved and psychologically damaged members of those perceived upper classes currently having hissy fits and generally acting out in front of the rest of us.

Veruca Salt energy out there

No, I’m not talking about the orange obvious.  That’s a given.

Exhibit A is Martha-Ann Alito, wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.  A lady so foaming at the mouth angry about the sight of a gay pride flag “across the lagoon” at her New Jersey summer house that last year she hung her own Appeal to Heaven flag – a symbol of both the Stop The Steal Campaign and the right’s effort to remake the U.S. government in Christian terms.

This woman? Really?

Secretly caught on what is now an infamous viral audio tape recorded by Lauren Windsor, a left wing political activist posing as a conservative supporter at a Supreme Court Historical Society black-tie event, Martha-Ann blustered she’s dreaming up new ways to get them, as well as all the rest of the media this summer.

You know what I want – I want a sacred heart of Jesus flag.  Because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride Flag for the next month… I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day, maybe every week I’ll be changing the flags.  I made a flag in my head, this is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag, it’s white and it has yellow and orange flames around it.  And in the middle is the word vergogna.  Vergogna in Italian means SHAME.  Vergogna. V-E-R-G-0-G-N-A. …Vergogna.  Shame, shame, shame on you…

Does she have an Etsy?

Yeah.  Well, Martha-Ann….f-k off.

Let me explain something.

The striped, multi-colored Gay Pride Flag – or Rainbow Flag –  was created by a small group of artists and activists in the seventies.  Its six different colors reflect the diversity within the LGBTQ community and over the years it has become a widely used international symbol of not only identity but also support from the millions of allies, aka family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances, of LGBTQ people.

Artist Gilbert Baker was the first designer to tackle the flag design.   And it was the famed gay rights leader Harvey Milk, who Baker first met in 1974, that challenged him to come up with a symbol of pride for the community.  

The original Baker flag

Eventually, Baker created a design of eight color stripes, which a team of artists and volunteers produced using a new hand-dyeing process.  They then hand-stitched the material together to create the first two flags, which made their joyous debut at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade on June 25, 1978.

Five months later, on the morning of Nov. 27, 1978, Harvey Milk, was famously assassinated in City Hall, along with San Francisco Mayor George Moscone.  As a result, demand for this new symbol of pride was off the charts and over the years and decades it has grown in stature to become a broader symbol for inclusivity.  (Note: Though its eight color stripes had to be reduced to six due to the demands of mass production and the difficulty of producing – yes – the color of hot pink).

Long may it wave!

This story is particularly worth repeating in light of Martha-Ann’s bile-filed invectives against a flag designed to lovingly unite, rather than to divide, her fellow human beings.  And to illustrate her use of religion as a fiery cudgel of flames to presumably incinerate those not adhering to the rules of her particular sect, insults so many millions of people of faith who have become our public and private allies in a rainbow movement of acceptance.  

To actually hear the six minute recording of Martha-Ann’s gleefully venomous pronouncements against the Pride Flag, as well as so many members of the “media”  (Note:  You can do so here and see that I’m not exaggerating ) would feel like a throwback to another era were it not for this current iteration of the MAGA movement.  

I may have to just take your word for it, Chairy

With its daily attempts to turn us into a dictatorial theocracy through whichever branches of government it can reign supreme over or destroy – judicial, legislative and/or executive branch checks and balances be damned – it has long ceased being a group much interested in substantial, good faith compromise, i.e. democracy.  

This is best personified by the words of Martha-Ann’s husband, aka Justice Alito. Several weeks ago he was caught on another viral audio clip at that very same event agreeing with what he perceived to be a conservative Ms. Conrad when she stated to him that they (conservatives) had to keep pushing the country to return to a place of godliness against the opposition.  Said Alito:

One side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.

BYE NOW

Yup. That’s Martha-Ann’s husband.  One of nine people who have the final say on what the rule of law is in a country where the other 333+million of us reside.  The same guy who wrote the majority U.S. Supreme Court opinion  exactly two years ago that overturned Roe vs. Wade, leaving millions of woman unable to legally control their reproductive choices in their home states.

And the ruling was no accident.  It was part of a 30-year judicial effort (Note: Some would say crusade) led behind-the-scenes by Justice Alito.  

We’ll see how that works out for them #VOTE

And for anyone thinks he’s not coming for the Rainbow Flag, contraception or Martha-Ann’s favorite target – the media – google some of those phrases, along with a few of his speeches to conservative groups, and see what you come up with.

The judge’s refusal to split the difference with those who differ from the very fundamental beliefs of his self-imposed, very strict brand of Roman Catholicism, is perfectly simpatico with the beliefs of Martha-Ann, who even angrily quotes scripture in her audio tape.  

Though even more unhinged, at least to this Jewish writer, is when she boasts of her German lineage when asked about how she will continue to fight back against her growing number of critics.

My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m going to give it back to you.  It doesn’t have to be now.  But there will be a way.  They will know….

Um… yikes

Okay, but that’s like………bad movie dialogue no screenwriter would ever write.  

And should be of no concern to anyone except the psychiatrist she likely doesn’t go to.

Three really quick things before we begin building the Alito video dartboard for next week. 

#1 – You’d think Martha-Ann would be happy.  She’s got two houses, two healthy adult children and a lifetime’s worth of friends and connections to lean on in case anything should go seriously wrong.  (Note:  Not to mention, great lifetime health insurance).

 But she’s not.  No one who talks that way is truly happy.

It’s true!

#2 – Some of her media rage is so petty, it’s almost not to be believed.  Click on this link to an article from The Cut that will tell you in juicy detail every Real Housewives tidbit you ever wanted to know. But here’s the gist —

During her husband’s confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court 18 YEARS AGO, the Washington Post’s then fashion editor, Robin Givhan, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in criticism for work done the previous year its committee called “witty, closely observed essays that transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism,” dared to criticize several outfits Martha-Ann wore and, to this day, she hasn’t forgotten.

Girl, calm down

Okay, yes, it was a little – actually a lot – bitchy.  But I’ve been called much worse to my face for many a fashion faux pas over the years and, trust me, so have you – even if you didn’t hear them.  The Martha-Ann standouts were for a “charmingly awkward” baby blue cable knit cardigan that was akin to bringing your own “binky” to the Senate, and a gold tweed suit that looked like it was once upholstery from a La-Z-Boy.  

Yawn.  And have either of them ever met any gay people?

It’s giving Miranda

Nevertheless, and very true to form, a couple of weeks ago Martha-Ann was caught on that tape still seeking revenge as she recounted each written insult in great, discombobulated detail;  practically recited the transcript of the snide phone call she made back in 2007 to faux “congratulate” her writer nemesis on the Pulitzer win; and once again restated her everlasting life commitment to eventually get even with them all (Note: See video.  Again.).

#3 –For at least an hour a day all week these three words were popping into my mind: Aunt Lydia Alito.  For those who don’t know, Aunt Lydia is the nasty, unhappy past middle aged lady in the world of The Handmaid’s Tale.  What this means is that in the dystopian theocratic nation of Gilead, Aunt Lydia cattle prods young women of child bearing age into: religious obedience against their will; sexual submission to their male commanders against their will; and demands their eternal acceptance of the fact that their highest and most precious duty under Gilead law is to become a baby incubator for an unlimited array of children they would not choose to have in order to serve God.

OK but her suit is tailored to perfection

Suffice it to say that the dialogue in the five season Hulu series (adapted from Margaret Atwood’s all too prescient book and returning for one final season in summer 2025) is a hell of a lot better than anything either of the Alitos has ever said on their own.

Let’s end with this:

A few days ago I watched the feature documentary about eighties Brat Pack actors, Brats.  Its director, Andrew McCarthy, a brat pack “member” from such seminal youth films as Pretty In Pink and St. Elmo’s Fire, confesses that after all these years he still runs away from those times and those films, too often torturing himself over the unfairness of being referred to as a brat when he and his colleagues were anything but.

A must watch

A mashup of period footage of him and his cohorts when they were in their 20s, the film intercuts commentary from McCarthy along with new interviews and observations he elicits from such fellow actors, bratters and bratter adjacents as Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Demi Moore, Jon Cryer, Lea Thompson, as well as a host of others, including the New York Magazine writer who made the phrase up in the first place.  

It’s A LOT to watch of McCarthy try to talk therapy his way out of it the psychological sand trap he has dug himself into for all these years via the camera and on audio.

Cmon Blane

Still, rather than seething with rage about all the people he is going to get for coming after him all those years ago, he actually seems to at least be trying to figure out why all that access, success, money, and privilege couldn’t wipe away the sting of being called an unkind name.  Or two or three.  Almost forty years ago.  

Which is more than you can say for some people.  Or anything else that came out of the eighties.

And for some reason, that gave me hope.  

John Parr – “St. Elmo’s Fire”