carey_mulligan_and_peter_sarsgaard_an_education_movie_image.jpg
Nous N'avons Pas Besoin d'Éducation


An Education / Drew Morton

Film Reviews | November 20, 2009 | Comments (38)


The dilemma at the center of Lone Scherfig’s British coming-of-age drama, An Education (2009), is quite simple. Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is an attractive, incredibly smart, and witty 16-year-old growing up in a drab suburb of London in 1961. Judging from the lifestyles of the female role models around her, her future can be narrowed down to two options: housewife or schoolmarm. In order to meet the requirements of one of those employment opportunities, Jenny’s caring but overly concerned parents (Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour) and school teacher (Olivia Williams) forcefully suggest an education at Oxford. In order to market herself as a valuable candidate, Jenny must ace English, Latin, French (hence the title), and show cultural breadth (her “hobby” is the cello). Yet, if all goes according to plan, Jenny will meet a similarly cultured wealthy man and will no longer need to do any of those things. The irony, of course, is that an Oxford education is simply a means of making the bait more alluring. Jenny comes to this realization early into Scherfig’s film and asks the question “Why must I attend Oxford when I could easily take a shortcut and reach the same inevitable conclusion by attending the school of life? I’d have a lot more fun.”

And fun, indeed, is what Jenny has. En route home after symphony practice on a rainy day, she meets a man named David (Peter Sarsgaard). David is not only twice Jenny’s age but is also cultured, financially endowed, charming, and witty, thus inspiring in Jenny the desire and the means to slightly cheat the game of life by passing “GO,” collecting two hundred quid, and finding herself at the former of two options: a housewife, but a wealthy and cultured one at that. David and Jenny go to concerts together, enjoy beautiful dinners at jazz clubs with their friends Danny (Dominic Cooper) and Helen (Rosamund Pike), and vacation in Paris. As time progresses, Jenny becomes the object of envy of her classmates and represents the freedom that her mother, school teacher, and school administrator (Emma Thompson) repressed when they once rolled the dice. Not long into their relationship, David proposes to Jenny and her deliberate subversion of the conservative order that an education at Oxford represents seems to have been dealt its coup de grace.

However, both David and An Education are ultimately not what they appear to be. Throughout the film, Scherfig and screenwriter Nick Hornby (author of High Fidelity and About a Boy, who is adapting a memoir by British journalist Lynn Barber here) give us ample clues that David is not really the type of person he presents himself as. Where does his wealth come from? While his ability to use his charm to smooth talk Jenny and her parents is incredibly powerful, everything in the plot, form, and direction of the film (Sarsgaard’s performance in particular) disables David’s superpower when it comes to winning over the audience. We want to like him, but we don’t trust him and, in the end, we’re right not to.

This said, the film and David have one key characteristic in common: they are both dishonest. Coming out of An Education, I felt the same way about the film as I did about David. I wanted to like it, I wanted to fall under its charm, but there’s something rather slippery and off-putting about its ultimate message. While I will be quick to admit that the film is to be praised for the performances of Molina, Sarsgaard, and particularly newcomer Carey Mulligan, whose face and personality are this film’s raison d’être, I found the ideology represented by the characters and events portrayed rather troubling. The film critiques the conservative lifestyle of an Oxford education for the bulk of its running length, favoring world experience and seizing the day as the correct and more fulfilling alternative. Yet, at the end of the film, we’re left with the impression that while seizing the day makes you rich and fulfilled, you’re ultimately an immoral fraud, poser, and a coward. The school of life is a shortcut viewed with contempt. Thus, Jenny loses a turn, does not pass “GO,” does not collect two hundred quid, and finds out all along that the established social order of conformity was, in fact, the only correct path.

Even from the perspective of a man who has spent nearly eight years in a university lecture hall and who deeply treasures the education of the film’s title, this ideological conclusion made me uncomfortable. Surely, there is much to be learned in life that does not involve French, Latin, and deciphering Geoffrey Chaucer, and the bulk of those learning exercises do not render the subject dishonest or morally crippled. While the film offers up the briefest hint that Jenny is perhaps more seasoned and less näive about the workings of the world after her brief stroll on the road less taken, the film’s final scenes seem to cast aside that sentiment completely by repressing David and the lifestyle he represented. While this provides with an ending that is a happy one, the moves taken to get there feel dishonest and ideologically suspect.

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. He has previously written for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and UWM Post and is the 2008 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.


Jackass 3D | The Many Faces of Robert Pattinson





Comments

Carey Mulligan is so pretty, I saw her on a late night show and was struck how lovely she is. She had the hair to go with her cute face. That's right I can be swayed easily. And Saarsgard is always a yes for me but I probably won't see it in theatres.

Posted by: racahel at October 12, 2009 2:15 PM

"at the end of the film, we’re left with the impression that while seizing the day makes you rich and fulfilled, you’re ultimately an immoral fraud, poser, and a coward. The school of life is a shortcut viewed with contempt..."

-----------------------------------------

It all depends on what is meant by "seizing the day." Nowadays "free-spirits" who forgo education and employment are just freeloading slackers, who either: live off their parents, are on welfare or deal drugs. I
All deserving of contempt if you ask me. I get the feeling this movie's message is dated as hell.

Stay in school assholes.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 12, 2009 2:35 PM

If you ask me, neither the free spirit route nor the ivory tower will give you a clue what to make of your life. There are no set of directions, there are just role models with shiny 10% surfaces to them.

Mind you, I have a theory that (almost) everyone's twenties were an absolute clown show. Being at the height of your physical powers, but lacking experience and control is a recipe for regret.

Posted by: replica at October 12, 2009 2:56 PM

I don't mind being left with a feeling like I've been had, if it's done the right way.

Posted by: Cindy at October 12, 2009 3:06 PM

I'm interested in seeing this, but I'll probably wait until it comes out on Netflix.

As for the 'life vs. education', I have a lot of conflicted feelings. I'm of the opinion that you have to do what you feel is best for your life. My mother was married a week after her 22nd birthday and had me when she was 25. She finished her Bachelor's degree at 29. I'm more than a year older than she was when she got married, not dating anyone, but will have my Masters by the time I turn 25. We both took the path that seemed best for our circumstances, and I really don't think that one is "better" than the other. It's what you get out of it that counts.

Posted by: Rusty (formerly Genny) at October 12, 2009 3:31 PM

Quoting "The Wall" en français? Je pense que je suis dans l'amour.

Posted by: TryScience at October 12, 2009 3:47 PM

Is no one else disturbed by the fact that this guy, is an every technical sense of the word, a pedophile? I mean...that's the vibe I get from all the descriptions so far. Smooth, Charismatic talker: check. Sleeping with girls well below the legal limit: check. Buying expensive gifts and paying for outings: check. Everything about this so far just sets the hairs on my neck and causes the warning bells to go off.

Posted by: alphawhiskey at October 12, 2009 3:56 PM

Is no one else disturbed by the fact that this guy, is an every technical sense of the word, a pedophile?

Yeah I picked up on that too. It was just glossed over, really. Maybe that is part of the reason it seemed so dishonest.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 12, 2009 4:08 PM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it reads to me as though the movie says throughout its length how attractive the "free spirit" lifestyle, then at the end decries it as hollow, meaningless, dangerous, etc. Drew, you seem to read that as the film contradicting itself. Without having seen it, couldn't it be that the film intended for you to take the ride with her, rather than be a disapproving observer for half then the smug victor when it all falls down?

Posted by: Eep at October 12, 2009 5:10 PM

Carey Mulligan is luminous. Her portrayal of the naively optimistic Ada Clare in Bleak House was poignant and charming. I'm glad to see her getting more work.

Posted by: bonnie at October 12, 2009 5:19 PM

Carey Mulligan played Sally Sparrow in the best episode of "Dr. Who" ever... "Blink". My whole family was rooting for her to be the next Companion. She was fantastic in that role. I hope she dumps that Shia loser and goes on to more great things.

Posted by: Tranjo at October 12, 2009 6:46 PM

uh, i don't mind reading good plot summaries, but that was just a straight spoiler, DM. seriously

Posted by: Christopher at October 12, 2009 7:26 PM

I'm in agreement with Christopher here. Was it really necessary to write a complete summary and spoil how it turns out for those of us wanting to see it...?

Posted by: penelope at October 12, 2009 7:51 PM

Yeah, but in 1962, if you were a woman, getting into Oxford certainly wasn't the route more taken. I got the impression from the trailer that she came from a lower middle class background, which makes it even more of an achievement.

In any case, there was an extract of the book the movie was based upon a few months back in the Guardian. In real life, the Sarsgaard character comes across as a creepy schmuck.

Posted by: kevin_m at October 12, 2009 7:53 PM

Penelope and Christopher,

Watch the trailer. Sadly, I didn't spoil a thing as this flick is so unoriginal that you can see it coming 30 miles away.

Eep,

You're never allowed to take the ride with her because we know something is wrong the whole friggin' time.

Posted by: Drew Morton at October 12, 2009 8:10 PM

Isn't this based on an autobiography? Perhaps they were a little too faithful to the true circumstances. What I've never understood from the clips I've been seeing for many, many months is the reaction of David's friends. Young, sophisticated adults sitting in clubs with a 16 year old girl? No 16 year old is THAT pretty.

Posted by: Patricia at October 12, 2009 10:43 PM

I love Sally Sparrow Carey Mulligan.
I went and looked at some movie stills for the costumes and she does look 16 in the scenes where she has minimal makeup on.

Is no one else disturbed by the fact that this guy, is an every technical sense of the word, a pedophile?

Not sure if he is a pedophile, maybe more of a predator? Was 16 under age in the UK in 61'?
Either way it is creepy and each time I hear or read a review I wonder why no one seems to think that her being 16 and he 20 years older is not an issue.
At 16 it is creepy. If she were 19 or 20, not so much.

Posted by: Jules at October 12, 2009 11:58 PM

Ahh yes, true, Drew, you did mention that.

Posted by: Eep at October 13, 2009 2:06 AM

Having grown up in England in the 1960's, I can tell you that 16 was NOT underage. Also, it was very common over there for older men (30's) to see out teenagers or women in their early 20's to marry (see Prince Charles and Lady Diana, et al). The men wanted to get 10 years of work under their belt so they could afford a family, and probably get 10 years of sowing their oats, too. This was not an uncommon scenario. I'm not sure how it is in England now.

Posted by: BWeaves at October 13, 2009 9:55 AM

I just realized I didn't chime in on the pedophilia issue. I didn't register David as a sexual predator or a creep due to his interest in Jenny. I just saw it more as an older social system at work (members of my family married young to older men for love and for the reliability that a long term job holds).

With regard to the film, Jenny's parents embrace the relationship and David doesn't pin her down and have his way with her on the first date. The sexual relationship between the two, when it does happen, is handled quite well. We read David as shady, but not for being interested in Jenny as a 16 year old.

Posted by: Drew Morton at October 13, 2009 11:37 AM

Ah. I see the logic of it, but it still wigs me out.

Also, sorry about the grammar error. It keeps bugging me when I see it.

Posted by: alphawhiskey at October 13, 2009 3:52 PM

Doesn't anyone find it morally dubious that we are presented with the fact that David is married as the great betrayal. The misery caused by his ilk and the Rachman crew is brushed under the romantic carpet

Posted by: Laurie Power at October 22, 2009 4:01 AM

I kept thinking there was another movie hidden in there that I was much more interested in seeing..the story behind Sally Hawkins' face when she,toddler in hand, looks up and sees our Miss Jenny and murmurs, "Why, you're just a child."
Now THAT is a marriage I would have liked to have seen dissected and analyzed.In any case, I didn't hate this, but alas, like Jenny (and yours truly)as the same feeling of MEH concerning the losing of the much exalted virginity, I was waiting,and hoping, for something....more more MORE.

Posted by: devildoggie at October 27, 2009 9:55 PM

I finally saw this this afternoon and came back to read your review as intended.

I don't see her return to the Oxford path as any sort of ideological condemnation or endorsement one way or the other. This film was much more textured in its examination of the restrictions of society and the paths available to women then in that place with her circumstance.

If David had not been a liar, Jenny could have married him and probably received much of the cultural fulfillment she desired from life without the trappings of a proper education. She could have read all she wanted, attended all the concerts she wanted, etc.

The fact remains, however, that once she recognized it was a mistake to trust him, the Oxford path was her most efficient route when it came to learning for learning's sake, which - as a good student and intellectually curious person - was important to her, whether she had realized it earlier or not. She also came to realize it was not just about finding a husband. What other options did she have at that point but to attempt to return to the educational track? Her chief remaining inspiration at that point - Olivia Williams' character - had her best interests at heart and in that brief scene at her apartment - Jenny saw it is possible to be a woman and enjoy the music and texts that she loves so much without being the one who places the bids at some fancy auction.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at November 1, 2009 9:21 PM

Il aint rien ne va pas avec un homme plus ancien, essayez de cliquer sur une vaste jeune

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 20, 2009 11:21 AM

Si elle était ma fille de 16 ans j'avais mis mon pied dans son âne.

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 20, 2009 11:25 AM

Ce film me rappelle "Lolita."

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 20, 2009 11:29 AM

Crey Mulligan is hardly a newcomer. She has been working consistently in pretty large film and TV productions since 2005. There are weeks when I feel her face is always on my television screen.

Posted by: PaddyDog at November 20, 2009 11:32 AM

Oh, Guess Who, I love the way Google Translate rendered your phrase 'foot in her ass' as 'foot in her donkey'! Wonderful.

As for this film - peh. I loved Sarsgaard, as usual (and by the way, I don't think it's about paedophilia so much as an overall creepiness; she is, after all, sexually mature), but I found the film too pretty and glossy, and thought it signposted its messages too easily. There were some nice touches, but I thought the problem was that we had to see what she sees in Sarsgaard, so he was made endearing - so that we actually don't ever get to think of him as that much of a bastard; the shock of his deception didn't register as a real slap for me, so much as a WHOOPS! moment; and ultimately it felt like a coming-of-age film in which there was very little ageing.

Posted by: Caspar at November 20, 2009 11:59 AM

Je digere mal.

Posted by: Kballs at November 20, 2009 12:11 PM

Sir I speak French fluently I don’t need no homo google translator.

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 20, 2009 12:54 PM

I think the word you're looking for is 'ephebophile'. So, 'zut, pamplemousse', 'je t'aime, soutien-gorge engloutie', and 'vive le verseau libre.'

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at November 20, 2009 7:30 PM

LOL

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 20, 2009 9:00 PM

I disagree with your assessment that by going to Oxford, Jenny was choosing the path of conformity. Obviously, judging by her parents' delight at her upcoming nuptials, and her teachers' quiet despair at losing yet another bright student to the lure of engagement rings and wedding bells, this kind of thing - girls dropping out of school to get married - happened all the time.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe getting into Oxford is pretty freaking hard. She had been pushed to do this for most of her life, but by well-meaning adults who, in the end, were completely incapable of defending the education for which they had been preparing her. Her parents just wanted her to be taken care of. Her teacher and headmistress could offer no better defense of higher education than a teaching job or working for the civil service. Given the weak-ass reasons they were giving her, it's no wonder she chose the glitzy, exciting path offered by David.

The point is, a sixteen-year-old girl could never be expected to understand on her own all the benefits of a liberal education. I have a philosophy degree, and while it has never catapulted me into wealth and fame, I maintain that it unequivocally changed my life for the better. I came out of that program a stronger, more confident woman with a vastly improved understanding of myself and the world I live in. It changed my whole perspective for the better.

What every adult in Jenny's life failed to explain to her was exactly that: a rich, exciting husband and no education is a prison worse than correcting dozens of stupid King Lear essays, because it's the harder one to get out of. Her short-sighted parents and teachers made her figure that out on her own.

Posted by: J. K. Barlow at November 21, 2009 9:33 AM

Maybe she read JUDE THE OBSCURE, thereby becoming revolted by the whole process. Should've become a psychrolute instead, I the advice I always give when I'm saying nothing.

Thanks. And a fine 'loupcarou' to you, sir.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at November 21, 2009 8:14 PM

The Oxford choice could be seen as a sop to conventionality had Jenny not earlier announced to her school chums her intentions as to what she planned to do once she got there. She knew her particular intellectual curiosity would lead her to make unconventional choices, and yearned for the opportunity to make them.

Posted by: sansho1 at November 22, 2009 5:36 PM

I don't think the Jews need this kind of
presentation. D.

Posted by: Dolores at November 27, 2009 1:02 AM

As a young woman who became involved with a much older man on the cusp of my adult maturity, I really appreciated the way this film accurately represented how it feels to be with a glamorous older someone whose interest in you is the most thrilling thing you have yet experienced. The relationship is that much more seductive because they recognize and appreciate parts of your mind that others close to you do not, just at the moment when your mind is the most active and bright it has ever been.
Also, I think Mulligan's performance in counterpoint to Rosamund Pike's character illustrated an important fact about the 'seize the day' phase; if you are interested in a life of intellectual and cultural satisfaction and achievement, as Jenny is, you do know all along that the mere quest for pleasure will grow unsatisfying and stale if it isn't grounded by some deeper objective value. We may criticize the movie for making David's duplicity so obvious and drawing too stark a line between his life and the 'conservative' life at Oxford, but isn't it true that at just such a time in one's growth into adulthood, one does know better of such people and such lives, and dives in anyway? I know I did, and I felt the exhilaration and bittersweetness of the transformation of innocence into knowledge all over again as I watched this. Truly it did wrap things up a bit too tidily for my taste, because it should be addressed that the real satisfaction comes from making something wholly new out of the best parts of both spheres, an idea only briefly addressed in the closing lines. But Carey Mulligan took me back to what it felt like to enjoy the journey, while choosing not to think about the inevitable obstacles for a brief while, and such a rarity shouldn't be overlooked.

Posted by: misslit20 at February 7, 2010 2:07 AM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.