White Palace

Maybe this will be the only negative commentary on White Palace anyone will ever read. Do we really believe that a 27 yr. old, handsome, upwardly mobile "fine Jewish boy" well educated and cool (albeit still grief-ridden over the death of his wife) will eventually remain in a long term relationship with a slovenly, brazen,, chain-smoking,hard-drinking waitress almost 17 years older than he? A couple of more summers maybe--and that doesn't jell as a "romance" for me. Susan Sarandon sums it up "I give a good *"( add some more years on her and she can take out her teeth??)---Who stands to end up heartbroken?? She does. Will she spend every day looking for more wrinkles, and feeling "unworthy"? The differences will become more and more unbearable for both and this "couple" will dissolve into thin air. Can we really accept that he(Spader) gives up a high paying career, and all the best in life and trade it for a walk-up "flat" and teachers pay for a woman so much older that he? That just isn't going to happen in real life. For one thing, James Spader is playing a very intelligent, very sexy man! Most critics are focusing on the cultural differences as the major problem. (And--how she is at such a contrast with his lifestyle and family and friends.)The nitty-gritty is--she cannot last due to her age. I am sure it is just a physical thing. We all know its going to be a downhill trip for this couple. All of these obvious conclusions were standing in the way of believing the film. It was great as a fantasy film, or maybe Disney could put a spin on it, and get by. The acting is terrific, and powerful! But I couldn't get White Palace 11 ( never to be made but in my imagination) out of my mind. Realism makes manifest; a doomed interlude. Everybody loved the movie, but I found it improbable as a true "love story". Two magnetic lovers, mesmerized by passion-- who will remain in each others dream life only a decade down the road, at best.. Maybe all women over 40 who saw the film are thinking what I'm thinking but didn't have a place to verbalize it. Thanks.

"White Palace" is one of my favorite movies, and I am amazed at the negative comments about Susan Sarandon's armpits. They clearly are part of her character, and she is to be commended for going to the extra effort to fit herself into the part (exactly as Demi Moore did in "We're No Angels"). Gillette created the woman-shaving fad in the 1930's as a successful effort to double their razor sales. Then in the late 60's, young women stopped wearing makeup and stopped shaving as part of "the natural look." In the early 1970's, the cosmetic companies unleashed a media blitz to get women away from this natural look. They were successful, and heavy makeup (even cartoonish) and shaving became a fad again. The current advertising in the U.S. is designed to make women feel insecure and unattractive. Then it tells them they can be acceptable and beautiful if they wear the latest (and most expensive) gunk, and scrape off every bit of body hair below their eyebrows. Women have completely bought into it. Personally, I like women to look natural and not wear thick makeup (or any, in fact); I feel that they are much prettier without it.

We're (justifiably) a little (or a lot) disgusted when a film blatantly panders to creepy old men: middle aged protagonist scores hot woman in her early 20s. Ew. That's exactly what we're looking at here, except with swapped genders and an extra layer of obnoxiousness. Susan Sarandon and James Spader are excellent actors, and their performances *almost* save it from the source material. Almost. I would have a hard time believing that ANY self respecting guy would put up with being treated like Sarandon's character treats Spader's. We're supposed to look at her as noble but unrefined, but honestly, she's just selfish, childish and manipulative. There's no sense that Spader's character has anything to learn from this experience, outside of how shallow his friends are. He could have learned that with any "unacceptable" woman: making the woman in question genuinely unappealing is silly. When you add the younger man/older woman aspect to it, the movie gets downright creepy. We're clearly expected to think that Spader's character has come down to Earth and recognized what's really important, but the only thing the movie proves is that (maybe) he's a masochist in search of a sadist. If you removed Sarandon's character's difference in age, coarse language, and casual racism, you'd still have someone I wouldn't want to be in the room with: I'd have a difficult time believing that Spader would tolerate her character if if she were a hot 19 year old. If she HAD been a hot 19 year old, you could keep everything else and she'd be the spoiled child that the hero got AWAY from, not the one he runs TO. There are only two explanations that make any kind of sense. One, the film wants to bash poor, middle aged women (no.) Two, it wants to feed a middle aged, female audience the same kind of obnoxious wish fulfillment that middle aged male audiences get with the four decade age difference between Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones in Entrapment. It's creepy there, and it's creepy here. Every aspect of this film is based on seeing Sarandon's character's world as preferable to Spader's, and it absolutely is not...not because of disrespect to older women, poor women, or unrefined women, but because she's simply irritating. The fact that there is a 20 year disparity to Entrapment's 40 says more about Hollywood's tolerance of old men than it does about its condescension towards older women: this movie screws up so badly that in some scenes the shallow rich people are considerably more sympathetic than the "earthy" heroine. I suppose that middle aged women are every bit as entitled to wish fulfillment as middle aged men, but creepy is creepy. When you spend more time thinking about the film's target audience than you do about the film, it's a failure (just like Entrapment, actually.)

Am I missing something here? A trashy 40-something waitress picks up a cute, drunk younger man in a bar. She takes him home, basically rapes him, ( I know, I know....he seemed to be enjoying it, didn't he?) and then all of a sudden he can't do without her? I'm not buying it. There is not one word - not one line - not one shred of respect, admiration, fondness, or friendship between them. There is not one scene that convinces you that they really are compatible in any way. You get the feeling he doesn't even LIKE her very much. They have great sex - no question. But this is supposed to be the basis of a life-changing relationship for him? It is so totally unbelievable. I like Susan Sarandon and I like James Spader. But they should have gone back to the drawing board on this one before they ever released it. The older woman/younger man story is great. But let's get some better dialog and at least a couple of scenes to convince us that there might be a real relationship here.

I hated this movie. First of all, because Susan Sarandon is so unattractive in this film (yes, I know she's supposed to be unattractive) I had no rooting interest in seeing these two characters get together. This movie's plot line can be summed up in one line: 'Rich guy falls for white trash woman for no reason.' Completely unappealing.

The story is about a young man ( Yuppie)who falls in love with a woman who is 15 years his senior. A beautiful love story with lots of passion. They live in two totally different worlds. he's rich , she's poor.It doesn't work. So she moves to NYC But his love is so true an deep. So when he finds her they come back together. A perfectly happy end. The reason why I watched this movie was because I'm truly one of the biggest Susan Sarandon fans. She shines absolutely beautiful in this movie.And James Spader has performed one of his bests roles ever. my favourite scene is when Nora (Susan) meets one of Max(James)'s Friends, Sherri.She asks Nora "you know our max is quite a catch. How Did you manage it?" and Nora says:"I give a good b***job I guess" Sherri : Hmmmmm.. I bet you do"and Nora answers: "And I bet you don't" You must see the look on Sherri's face I think it's a great movie because normally hollywood is afraid of a love story about a young man and an older woman.There should be more of those movies because some people think it's strange when a older woman has a love relation with a much younger man. ( I've never thought it was strange and I'm only a fifteen year old girl) But most people find it absolutely normal when an old man has something with a much younger woman. So I think this movie is really important. We can all learn something about it.

It was interesting to me that it was more of a problem that she was such a slob than that she was significantly older than him. If anyone can carry off a believable and appealing older woman/younger man romance to a mass audience, it's Susan Sarandon. No other actress combines her ripe, open sexuality with such an accessible and self-assured personality. She makes sexiness respectable. James Spader does less well, not so much because of a faulty performance, but because he seems unable to break through a preternatural reserve. It served him well in "Sex, Lies and Videotape" but a little more emotionality is called for here. The sex scene when he is writhing in the throes of passion and finds a half-eaten sandwich under the bed is hilarious, not to mention the pivotal scene when he gives her a dustbuster as a gift. The future for this couple might seem unlikely, but I don't think it's any less likely than that of most movie lovers.

White palace has a great sexual dynamic, clearly Susan Sarandon's character (Nora Baker) is a sexually charged self confident woman who is at least 10 years or so older than James Spader's character (Max Baron). This movie shows how deep attraction and passion can change people's lives (perhaps for the better) and overcome class/personality and age differences. The first and perhaps most noticeable aspect is one of the hottest and more believable seduction scenes in a movie, where Nora shows a raw animal passion for Max rarely shown in movies (and when it is is shown in an unfavorable light, e.g. Single White Female). Susan Sarandon pulls off this challenging scene with great passion AND dignity. The May/December romance with the older lady is shown in a healthy light (not like say The Graduate). But more important than the age dynamic, is the deep attraction between Nora and Max, which goes strongly across traditional cultural differences. Max is a compulsively organized widower, neat and decidedly upper-middle/upper class. Nora is more impulsive, living a less ordered existence and is lower/lower middle class. Max has conditional love for Nora, trying to change her (unintentionally acting judgemental?) by trying to help her out (e.g. buying her cleaning supplies as a "gift"). Nora teaches Max about life, and passion. This movie has a much more interesting love story than say "Pretty Woman".