Why did she have sex in the police car?
-
ThomasEdison — 20 years ago(October 30, 2005 04:47 AM)
Those familiar with the mindset of women who go from one abusive relationship to another would understand Jean's actions are very realistic. Add to it the protection factor and her relationship with Crane becomes even more compelling. I do agree that the immediate sex seemed out of place. A better sequence, with no added time, would have been to have Crane take Jean to her parent's home first, offering a little relationship-building time, and then step it up to a sexual level. Also Lopez' acting of the role was a little too flirtatious and not enough vulnerability, and the portrayal of Crane was too simple and perfect. Give him a little more fire that's what Jean likes. Her husband was a rodeo competitor!
The hard-to-hide afterglow made it easy for the screenwriters to set up immediate tension for Grif toward the new boyfriend. Grif has seen it way too many times before. This too is very typical in such relationships. -
bidwell — 19 years ago(April 08, 2006 01:30 PM)
She had sex with Crane, the town police officer.
I thought that scene was out of place too. One minute he's having coffee, the next minute she is asking for a ride and then jumping him. I'm not a prude either, I just thought her skankiness was out of character for this film. Who knows.
Apparently Josh Lucas said J.Lo was the best kisser in his films, but we never see them kiss. Maybe he was getting some off camera action.
-
drenei — 19 years ago(April 11, 2006 11:29 PM)
just watched the movie.
the sex scene didn't feel out of out place to me, rather it seemed to put another piece of jean's character together. as people have already mentioned she's dealing with a large set of problems - including guilt (about her husband's death, as well as being a mother), loneliness, low self worth and loss. with all of that she wouldn't want to/be able to spend to much too much energy on an emotional investment. at the very least she'd be very hesitant about it (especially after her past history of abusive relationships). definining and limiting her relationship with crane to casual sex for three weeks seemed like a reasonable step for her character to take.
of course it sounds like book wrote the scene out differently (as is usually the case). and there's always a lot of different ways to make a point or define a scene/character. i also dont have any sort of problem with sex in movies, so i am biased in my own way.
still decent film. redford and freeman were great as was gardner, and lopez wasn't half bad. -
C.S.Wood — 19 years ago(April 14, 2006 03:21 PM)
The funny thing is, when she says she's leaving in three weeks, I said out loud "which means we have between now and three weeks to have sex."
I had a good laugh when that car scene happened seconds later.
"Action is how men express romance on film." Kurt Wimmer -
lilolranchmare — 19 years ago(April 16, 2006 11:40 PM)
Ok, my first reaction when I started watching this movie was that of totaly relating to the character. Would she have had a quickie? YES, she probably would have. A few years ago, I might have done the same thing, just getting out of a couple of abusive relationships.
If you have walked in the same shoes as I have or as the character was persumed to have, then the scene makes sense.
I agree that it was probably not needed, that perhaps if they were going to leave it in, they could have done a lead up to it.
I am picking the book up tomorrow, I will read it and see if maybe there was some way that it could have been embelished more to be a scene that was pertinent to the movie.
But, I DO SEE WHERE THEY WERE COMING FROM. -
spooly_montana — 19 years ago(April 17, 2006 10:01 AM)
Imagine a more artful way to make the scene.
*She says that to Crane, they pull off the road.
*Then the camera goes into the jeep, where they are laying. With a coat covering them? Or something from the jeep? And you will get the feeling that they had sex, but not the crudeness of the sounds in the dirt pit coming from Crane's jeep.
*Then Crane looks up at the ceiling of the jeep, thinking about the responsibility he has in sleeping with her, and her past.
*She just has her eyes closed, laying on his chest.
Cut to next scene
that would be so much better!
That would not have put off those of us who have not read the book, maybe never will, and have that as an impression of her characterization in the film
GOOD FILM THOUGH! -
MeiLing_1982 — 19 years ago(December 01, 2006 03:11 PM)
The whole idea was that it was supposed to have a skank factor and was indicative of the place that Jean was emotionally - not having a lot of self-respect and not making good choices.
Shooting it as you have Spooly, would have entirely changed the tone and made it more about making love than having sex.
Those who think that this scene was unneeded just plain didn't get it! -
trinanva — 19 years ago(April 17, 2006 08:03 PM)
I think the scene belongs in the film but it was just played wrong. I think Jean having sex with Crane is believable because she was vulnerable and needing comfort (which could be why she kept finding herself in bad relationships) but, as ThomasEdison alluded to, Jennifer Lopez's portrayal of Jean was off. She was more JLo than Jean. The way she asked for a ride home and the way she talked in his jeep about not being able to make it through the next 3 weeksdidn't sound like a battered and insecure woman. She made Jean seem very sure of herself and of what she wants and clearly, that is not who Jean was. I think the scene was necessary because it was a segway to the other sceneswhen her daughter met Crane, when Jean and Einer had the argument and when Griff left Jean to go back to her grandfather. I just think the scenes leading up to the sex scene in the jeep could have been played better.
Also, did anyone else notice that Jean had a New York accent?
No disrespect to Jennifer Lopez, I just think a more dramatic actress could have done Jean more justice. -
wetzesha — 19 years ago(May 17, 2006 06:26 AM)
I don't see what the big deal is. The scene is not explicit. In fact, you don't see anything. I watched the DVD last night for the first time, but did not check out the extra features, so are there deleted scenes? Perhaps there was an extended sequence, but J-Lo has been trying to move away from the sexpot image, and Josh Lucas, despite his "womanizing ways" in real life, tends to not expose himself in explicit sex scenes, so maybe between the two of them they convinced the director to scale it back. Plus, it would've changed the rating.
-
jspost10 — 19 years ago(May 20, 2006 02:49 AM)
I don't see what the bid deal is either. The woman got to have sex with Josh Lucas for crap sake! You can't knock her for that! I'd give her a virtual high-five.
"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball!" -
LittleMissSunshine1993 — 19 years ago(June 13, 2006 10:53 AM)
This scene completely threw me when I saw the movie. It just seemed out of place and out of context and seem to come out of nowhere. IMO, this was the only thing I didn't care for in this movie (simply because it didn't really make sense (I mean sure they obviously were interested in each other, but it seemed to me they hardly knew each other)). I think the whole Jean/Crane relationship could've used a little bit more work.
