Well, of course.

I was loyal for 40 years. I thought he was my life. I thought all my memories were wrapped up in him. I thought he was irreplaceable. But the abuse was more than I could take. I could make a new life. I could make new memories. And he was, indeed, replaceable.

I was loyal for 40 years. I thought he was my life. I thought all my memories were wrapped up in him. I thought he was irreplaceable. But the abuse was more than I could take. I could make a new life. I could make new memories. And he was, indeed, replaceable.

Absolutely. My favorite!!

She's awesome in kramer vs kramer too

The movie is good, but read the book. It delves deeper into the family dynamics, and the mystery of what happened. In the book she has three brothers. I wished they would have put that in there. Also, the actors were a bit too old for the part. It should have gone to someone in their early to mid 20s. Ellen was in her 40s when it happened. When the movie came out, Renee was in her late 20s to early 30s. You will love the book. I read it after my grandfather died because he and I had such a good relationship. There is nothing like the bond between a grandfather and grandson.

@@fperkin2 I read the book but is was so long ago.I knew thier were more sons.I used to be an avid reader.I have an auto insurance disease that is causing me to lose my eye sight.i h have never liked books on tape but may have to resort to that as a last resort.i miss books.

HC sold her soul long ago. His infidelity had nothing to do with it.

Yes

true but it’s extremely common, she’s not unaware. She states you make compromises you never thought you would over the sheer fact you’ve been through it all. She’s making the point when you go through certain traumas or are going through one, sometimes the only choice is to try to be happy that things couldn’t get worse. As you get older the compromises don’t affect just you, it affects everyone. Even if you don’t think it does. Messes are easy to make but clean ups can be too hard.

My husband compromised on my infidelity. I got therapy. We compromise on a lot of things for each other. It’s not your choice. Don’t judge the choices of others.

@@Catglittercrafts John 7:24

IMHO: Thi s movie shows a man (The Father) as a covert narcisssist with alcoholism and "cheating ways." Biblically speaking, the "ongoing adultery" on his part broke the covenant of marriage, and someone dies which unfortunately is the wife who dies of cancer. Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments and it's a serious sin. Also, "wives looking the other way" when the husband is cheating, was a common occurence in the 1950s, I've heard. Apparently every decade has "good and bad" elements. There are no "good ole days."

Yeah, It just made me sad for her. there’s radical acceptance and still loving someone despite not being who you thought they were flaws and all and then there’s being stonewalled, used as the morality pet and a mule for emotional labour. All while being sneered at for being a homemaker. PLUS All while getting cheated on repeatedly. She likes to do acts of service and her domestic life, but this story is semi biographical about a woman’s terminally Ill mother in the 70s and I don’t know if it played out exactly like this, but the financial abuse and lack of options for women then, especially due to faith, stigma and money would make most complacent. even though that woman smiled, dressed up and was such a light…she was done. She would’ve been okay dying, if not for the concern of leaving her daughter. That is a drained woman and it wasn’t the cancer that did it. I guess bygones are bygones when your death is imminent and you still are close to the father of your children, but I wish she knew (and people in her position knew) that the love they have for their unavailable partners that they cling to isn’t the strong option. It’s stronger to let go. They trap themselves in this inertia. Their identity is too enmeshed with their husbands. They are an appendage. He’s the scholar, the bread winner and she has to be grateful and be okay with not being thanked or prioritized.

@@surette2012this was beautifully said. My favorite part was “she’s done and it wasn’t the cancer that did that” just powerful

...and what about it?

Then what do you want her to do? Act like a mannequin? youre just bitter :(

You run your mouth too much

Imagine that meryl is so great as an actress the only thing you can pick a part in this scene was her head "moved too much" lmao pathetic

Damn lol People are so defensive. I agree with you 100%. Every film I've ever seen of Meryl I only see Meryl, not the character she's playing. People praise her versatility yet she basically gives the same performance in every movie just with a different accent. That's why people remember Meryl but they can't remember most of her films. Meanwhile look at Glenn Close. Fatal Attraction, Dangerous Liaisons, and 101 Dalmatians. She plays a crazed, evil woman in all of them yet each one is so wildly different from the other.

No, because the women was not educated she got cheated on and has to suck it up.

Katharine Hepburn was a joke who played a mannered version of herself every movie.

@@DeepScreenAnalysis I agree (except that I don't consider Hepburn a joke). Yet one who can astutely discern (Hepburn) where there is lack (Streep) often comes from poverty in oneself (lack of range in Hepburn). Also, one-note as Hepburn was (whether in drama or comedy), no one can play Hepburn as Hepburn did. She was a phenomenal screen icon. She had an innate power of presence, on screen and off. A formidable personality. That was her strength on screen. Nevertheless, in dramatic roles, she did not move me, and for the very reason you mentioned. Not dissimilarly, for me, Streep acts from and on the surface; but she (usually) acts well enough (in dramatic parts) to convince most viewers that she's going deep/calling forth depths when, in fact, it only appears that way. As I said, Streep can't touch Blanchett or Close. As actors, the latter embody everything that Streep does not possess, and never has. Obviously, this is not a science. For most people, it's a matter of personal preference. But that's not the point I'm making. Which is: one either has an innate, razor-sharp bull-shit detector (nod to Hemingway), or one doesn't. It's not something that can be learned. One either has it, or doesn't.

@Antonia I have been a cinephile for more more than four decades, and a film writer for more than half of those. In my passion for cinema, I have been fortunate to see thousands of films -- of all genres, across all eras, including the silent era, and from richly diverse cultures and in languages ranging from Mongolian to Arabic, from Bambara to Euskara, from Ukrainian to Inuit, from Ojibwe to Kikongo, from Russian to Japanese (the two greatest examples of "national cinema" in all of film history), and certainly the Romance languages. Within that vast and fascinating, utterly glorious spectrum of cinema, and the scope of its most intrepid filmmakers and artists, I'm fully aware of Ms. Streep's accolades, and have seen her most crowing screen achievements. You, of course, have your subjective opinion. And I have mine -- albeit with more than a subjective opinion to support my perspectives, however blunt my other comments to this video. Just keep enjoying her films. No one is stopping you. As certainly no one is stopping Ms. Streep in her career (and good for her). People who know their craft exceedingly well -- whatever their area of expertise -- don't need to foam at the mouth to defend their abilities. Their work stands for itself. As does Streep's -- that is, for those who respect, appreciate, and admire her work. I don't know what your background is. But, unlike you, I don't presume to know, nor, frankly, in this particular thread, is it relevant. Your love for Ms. Streep's work is wonderful. For you. Not necessarily for everyone else. No one is taking your regard for her work away from you. As for accolades, I don't consider Hollywood and the mainstream U.S. movie industry to be the final, or even the first, arbiters of critical assessment and judgment of the medium. Artistic courage is not the landscape of Hollywood. Profit, above all, is. Tinsel Town is also notorious for possessing a phenomenal ignorance of the history and scope of cinema, and certainly of film as craft and art form. That said, no one can contest that Ms. Streep is an incredibly talented and skilled actor. She is in an elite class... of her type and kind. Which is to say, in the measure of those who think so, and to the degree that they do. An artist or truly critical thinker does not qualify themselves based upon a mass consensus of others. They are innately independent observers and creators. They are outliers by nature, a state of mind and being which informs their craft and vision. And outliers have no less grounds for their viewpoints, including no less than yours. Simply put, Streep's acting is not what I am inclined towards, and never have been.* True cinephiles -- whose depth and breadth of knowledge of cinema is accompanied by psychological maturity and vast life experience -- know well what I mean here. Moreover, they recognize that artistic nuance and complexity are defined not only by a lead "performance," but by the artistic integrity of a film itself. That is a fluency that is overwhelmingly foreign to Hollywood and audiences of mass-consumptive entertainment. A level of ignorance, shallowness, and cowardice that is consistently, predictably evident at the AMPAS (the Oscars) -- industry-servant to the box office and, therefore, to the popular. Whereas art is inherently anything but readily digestible. Hollywood and the Oscars: not exactly the/a preeminent standard-bearers of film cred. (And understatement.) So, relax. Why should you care about my opinion, anyway? Why do you feel so threatened by an opinion contrary to your own? Streep wouldn't be. Indeed, she hardly needs you or her other fans to defend her. She has the maturity to accept a diversity of opinions. That's an inherent given in most actors, versus fear, rigidity and inflexibility. Any actor worth his or her salt lives to portray as wide an array of differences, contradictions, and contrasts in roles as come their way. As an actor, Streep not only welcomes, but does her best to honor, such diversity in the roles she portrays. Do you possess a similar capacity to appreciate such distinctions? Or, is shouting your disagreements, and presuming the character of utter strangers, instead your forte? Certainly, no detractor of Streep's abilities is threatening her standing. That would be a ridiculous notion. I simply see through her technique, and I don't take to it, as others do. I've seen far too many films and other actors, for me not to have developed fundamental reference points of discernment. And which also includes my personal aesthetics, if you will, in addition to serious film criticism; one informs, but does not necessarily exclude, the other. So, keep enjoying Streep's work, which, of course, you will. And be moved and enriched by her performances, with each repeated viewing, which you will. As I said, no one is stopping you. Least of all, your apparent insecurities in this regard. For no one is threatening what you love and admire. And, even if a person were, you're free to ignore them (at least in a free society). Ms. Streep herself certainly wouldn't feel threatened. She's far too busy bringing the best of her abilities to her craft, and to each role she takes on -- and with consummate professionalism. And, for that, she has my respect. (Not that my opinion should matter, that is.) * Whereas, by contrast, and as I have previously mentioned in other comments, the incontestably formidable gifts, razor keen intellect, extraordinary elegance of mind, and magnitude of subtle power and complexity of inner stillness (both on and off the screen and theatrical stage) -- of actor Cate Blanchett -- is a truly phenomenal example of a depth of artistry, anywhere in the world, which I admire beyond measure. And where her precision of infinite nuance and artistic intellect is matched, thread for thread, by her humility, generosity, and grace toward others -- both on and off the screen and stage. Blanchett is a thoroughly uncompromising artist, sans any pretense of such. She does not act the "movie star"; does not presume adulation of her, by her peers and the public (in fact, the contrary); does not conduct herself as if in "charmed" occupation of Hollywood's "inner circle" of self-congratulatory screen celebrities. She is a master of artistic sophistication -- possessed of passionate, ferocious bravery. The kind of innate integrity, humanity, and warmth that are as rare as they are unstoppable. In a similar vein, Amy Adams also comes to mind. One doesn't see the wheels turning in these two consummate actors. Ever. With Streep's portrayals, I always do.

No soul or no depth - feels like you are describing Blanchett not Streep

You dont know anything about acting.

She will be blessing you from wherever she is. Find your strength in all the wonderful moments you had with her ❤

That’s what I was thinking

Yes. Yes it is :)

You totally missed the point.

stardusth2o whoops - I missed the word “the”. I thought the query was about having sex outside of marriage, not a marriage one is currently in - apologies!

For some women it works. Sexual outsourcing.