Nancy Wallach

Reviews and other content aren't verified by Google

While introduced by a voiceover that sets a literary, fairytale like tone for the story, the film touches upon some very real life problems of social prejudice and double standards that still persist for women in our society. A disgruntled student records the main character, an English teacher played by Julianne Moore, admitting to having sex with a former student who has now returned back to his hometown after completing a graduate program in playwriting. She and a colleague played by Nathan Lane, do not change the ending of the play, as they have agree to do in order to obtain permission from the school administration to get the play produced. In the process, they both lie to the administration and the playwright, who does not know of their agreement. It seems that Julianne Moore’s character has all of the anger directed at her. She bears the brunt of the disapproval and social approbation, from her students, her principal, the playwright and his father. When she agrees to step in, even after being fired, and directs the play, rewrites the ending to strengthen it and succeed in getting it produced, she receives no public credit or appreciation for her efforts, much less an apology. Her colleague, who did not defend her or own up to equal guilt in the deception, along with the students who cruelly shamed her, instead steps in and takes the bows, inviting only the playwright, who did not write the improved version of the play, to share the spotlight. The former student who pursued a legally underage actress in his play does not seem to have exhibited any growth or undergone any itself awareness as the film concludes. After witnessing the lead character’s suffering, so well portrayed by Julianne Moore, we are once again returned to an unconvincing fairytale like happy ending.

I have to begin this comment/review with a spoiler alert. I have a question concerning the ending which perhaps other readers can help me with, without divulging any spoilers themselves! After the resolution of this latest case, Jean-Guy tells his father-in-law Armand that he should have accepted the offer of Head of Homicide, even tho’ it is a demotion. Armand said he refused because he felt Beauvoir had earned it himself, and had grown into the job. This seems inconsistent with the fact we later learn, that Gamache himself had arranged the job offer for Beauvoir to leave policing, in order to keep him safe from mortal danger and perhaps psychological burnout? He could not have been saving Head of Homicide for Beauvoir if he’d already arranged another job for him. Louise Penny is fond of leaving unresolved plots dangling, especially when it comes to Gamache’s career, so I hope that is the case here.

I am in the midst of reading this series in order, and having said that, “Glass Houses” is one of my favorites in the series so far. Author Penny poses a mystery from the outset: Who is the defendant in the courtroom? Further mysteries pile up as the story advances: Who is the cobrador? Who is it avenging? Why did it disappear? Who has been murdered?...and finally, who is the head of the drug cartel? Besides Penny’s deep psychological and philosophical insights, another factor adding to my enjoyment was the author’s use of the local weather and seasons. The juxtaposition of the summer and late autumn settings, helps the reader keep track of the time shifts between the present day courtroom trial and previous events as the crime unfolds. I did not have as much difficulty following the narrative as I thought I might because of this. The very vivid description of the stifling courtroom makes it into a literal inferno, in which Gamache may very well be paying the metaphorical price for allowing his own “Coventry” to happen, in the form of deaths due to the drugs he has allowed to flow in order to trap the cartel heads. Incidentally, I was glad to see Clara acknowledge her own role in Peter’s death by ignoring Gamache’s instructions to stay put, in a previous book.