Poor rich The more - the better, says Briton Rory O'Hara, a successful businessman, husband of Allison O'Hara, raising two children with her in New York. Why not? Wouldn’t you have taken a more promising job in London, with the ability to do it, and with the market in good condition, and would you have chosen a mansion several times the size of the present house? What do you blame Rory for? That he's not Adam Smith, that he's just a guy who can sell and buy? That he didn't anticipate the economic downturn that began during the reigns of seasoned politicians like Reagan and Thatcher? And spent more than this downturn can make up for? Risk is an integral feature of any financial activity.
“The more the better” is not a general principle of life. Allison didn't fit. "More" was about taking risks, pretending and something else that Ellison wasn't capable of. The storyline in its main scheme is a growing gap between Rory, who is ready for risks (otherwise he would be a lousy merchant), and Allison, who is not ready for them. All the hard conversations between spouses are just manifestations of this breakup. Unfortunately, Allison begins to pull her husband down - the husband owes his last unsuccessful business meeting to his second half and her stories about cleaning manure. Although this meeting was a great chance to improve the financial situation of the family. I wish Allison had understood that. How did not understand that in the final scene, the husband, and not her, first went to meet and offered to return to a smaller – more modest way of life.
Here is a horse named Richmond - nothing more than a reflection of suddenly broken Allison. She no longer felt her place in the family, nor did she feel anything wrong with Richmond. The loss of Richmond is irretrievable and painful, as is the loss in Allison of a loving wife willing to support her husband in a difficult situation. Allison accuses her husband of lying, exaggerating his wealth to business partners. I don't think people like Rory tend to change on the wave of success. He probably lied about himself before, making deals, but I think Ellison didn’t care so much before.
Such a plot evokes thoughts about the necessary consent of the spouses in something important for themselves. In this film, the main line is “more – less”, “risk – stability”.
Just chic in its (tragic) comical looks the episode with not quite adequate taxi driver. Rory drives home from that very bad meeting, and the taxi driver suddenly begins a “heart-to-heart conversation”. Rory says the essence of his profession is to “pretend to be rich” (and how else to attract rich clients?), but admits that at the moment he has no money. This episode, according to the director, is designed to show that Rory is easier to trust a stranger than someone he knows. After a question about the profession, the taxi driver begins to ask about the children. Rory says he's a great father and gives his kids more than he had. The taxi driver says there's nothing to brag about. And that the real meaning of life is to give children more than we had. He made it clear that Rory was doing little and advised him to do what he was already doing, repeating his words! And a few minutes later, after winding a decent kilometers, the taxi driver suddenly remembered that his client had no money. Why did he take it for a few minutes?
The director calls Rory a "victim of his time." We all bear the imprint of our time and its delusions. Rory, with his inherent American desire for success, is more prone to such delusions. Arthur, Rory's boss, tells Allison that after marriage, you should accept both the good and the bad. What Allison disagreed with, saying that the husband should want everything. And at the first serious problems with money, Allison immediately broke from such expectations from her husband.
6 out of 10
Original