Adam Fiaz

You know what truly grinds my gears? White people who are on a moral high ground and have the audacity to tell others how to live! Not everyone is an acid tripping hippie with no job and a family inheritance to live off of for the rest of his life. Some people need a 9 to 5 grind to pay their bills and put food on the table. Some people need to live in a 'ghetto' or in a community consisting majorly of their respective ethnicity because said people feel ostracized in majority white neighborhoods. Jack looks down on ghettos but he also had his acid pad and had created a clan of freakshow "freedom" seekers just like himself who all lived in the same area and didn't portray any wealth. Isn't that a ghetto in itself? The ideology behind this film may have been perceived as higher consciousnesses in 2005. However, it is nothing but outdated, phony, pompous, holier-than-thou nonsense in 2021. The privilege is real. In a sense I am happy that the deranged hippie decides to live away from actual civilization. Good riddance! Humans might even be extinct (or be living in very small numbers, with very scarce resources) if it wasn't for the advent of modern industrialization. People who act like they are so above it clearly have a nut lose! Guess what? When push comes to shove, people like Jack Slavin would have nothing to contribute to the world. I understand that there is a sense of romance and beauty attached to the kind of life that is portrayed in The Ballad of Jack and Rose and I suppose some people are swayed by it, but we need to open our eyes and understand how the modern world supplements our lives in every little way. Jack still pays money to buy food, Jack still pays money to drive a car, Jack still pays his taxes etc. Jack still subscribes to, and relies on, the modern economy in every way that he pretends he doesn't. Someone wants to build a couple of houses and Jack f**king shoots them down?!?! The fact that said houses had a flawed sewage plan which might have contaminated the water supply of the wetland is a separate tangent and remains open to different discussions. To conclude, I hope people like Jack in the real world understand that their status at the top of the food chain is an earned status. Our strength comes from what we have created, not from what we were given! And don't even get me started on the inc3st thing...

This movie is based on a book by Phillip Roth. And almost every other Phillip Roth book is about an immensely beautiful babe in her 20s who develops a s3xual relationship with an older and presumably wiser and more intellectual man, much like the kind of man Phillip Roth believes himself to be. I don't think its a coincidence that Mr. Roth likes to write stories about shriveled prunes like himself who get to have s3x with young babes, while also creating a sense of intellect about said shriveled prunes. Shoving all of his fantasies and self-fulfilling prophecies into one book seems to be a norm for Mr. Roth. Can't blame an old fart for having his fantasies! Now onto the movie: the movie opens with David speaking at a talk show. He is having a shallow discussion about the repression of sexual expression in the Western world. He uses anthropological anecdotes (and conjecture also, to some extent) to justify his claims to a free life where men should have sex without having to care about the women they have it with. He believes Puritans zapped his sexual freedom and happiness! It makes me laugh because men will go to any extent to justify their acute perversions. In the way that he pursues Consuela, we can see that he is very shallow. For quite some time in the movie David is completely despicable and there is nothing to be liked about his character, at least not by any fully realized person who doesn't conduct their sexuality like a h0rny teenager. Finally, there is some redemption! As Consuela's love penetrates David's heart, he goes on a morally dignified crusade to mend all the wrongs he did. However, the past is the past and this doesn't wipe any man's slate clean, not in a movie and not in the real world! In the end, David tells Consuela that he will always be there for her and loves her completely but I am pretty sure Consuela will still outlive him, despite her breast cancer. Oh did I mention that the young babe has to get cancer for David to develop some sense of commitment to her? Yes, quite cliche! Before the cancer, David is still very possessive about Consuela, like he is about no other woman, but I think it was mostly physical. David didn't want her to sleep with someone younger and more virile than himself. He wanted to control her s3xuality and have her body all to himself. It didn't seem like love to me; it was morbid infatuation rooted purely in physical pleasure. To sum it up, take what you will from the movie. There are heartfelt moments that I can say are good, that is if I detach them from the character of David. I do think that David redeems himself slightly but not by a lot. I still, like his son, hate his pompous guts!