Re-watching 'Fatal Attraction' is fascinating in new era

I've always been a fan of the 1987 blockbuster thriller Fatal Attraction, even if I thought it's gender politics were a little bit off, to say the least. There's an argument to be made during at least the first third of the film that Michael Douglas is actually the antagonist for using and discarding his new mistress (Glenn Close) over the course of a weekend while his wife is away.

As the plot churns along Close goes from justifiably aggrieved woman to hard-charging psychopath, and its a testament to her unforgettable performance that she does so without ever sacrificing her dignity.

The infamous finale, which was famously re-shot when test audiences disapproved of the initial, more bleak one -- is still a pulpy, undeniably fun piece of entertainment -- but its shock value somewhat diminishes the more sophisticated story that led us to that point.

The original ending is startling in its pitch black brutality. We learn that Close has been 'killed' and the police arrest Douglas, since it stands to reason he is the suspect. A somewhat cheesy scene follows when his wife (played by the reliably sweet staple of the era, Anne Archer) discovers a threatening tape Close's character recorded earlier, where she alludes to the idea that she will eventually kill herself.



I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure that this tape would definitively exonerate Douglas, but either way the very last shot is almost unbearably dark. It's Close serenely sitting on the bathroom floor (quick cuts remind the audience that Douglas essentially placed the knife in front of her. He backs out of her apartment (after nearly murdering her) as she wears what can only be described as a haunting expression.

Not enough can be said about how fantastic Close is in this movie. I'm excited to see her having something of a late career resurgence. And this part, ironically her most famous one, is so unlike anything else she did before or since.

Meanwhile, Douglas has a tricky part. He is a complete dirtbag for much of the film and yet somehow, someway you have a rooting interest for him and Archer at the end. Maybe it's their adorable daughter (who feels very real in this) or simply his innate likability, but it's one of the great tricks that this movie pulls off that your allegiance switches to him even though he is a pretty undeniably venal and misogynistic character.

One of the oddest parts of the movie which I never grasped until now, is the Close character at least claims to be carrying Douglas' child -- a premise that I presume we're supposed to believe is a lie but is also never entirely disproven, which gives the whole movie and its bloody conclusion an even more macabre air than it already has.

Ostensibly, we're supposed to look at that final shot of the family portrait (in the theatrically-released version) and think all is right with this household now that (spoiler alert) Close has been dispatched, but this is a couple that has not just been broken by infidelity, but adultery with someone who put them and their child in imminent danger. That is not a fissure that would ever be easily repaired, and maybe never can be.

Also, all the attributes of the Close character -- the temper, the neediness and possessiveness, could easily be conveyed by a male character should the story ever be reimagined. As much as I fight the movie to be a salacious delight, a movie of 'its time,' I've always felt uncomfortable with its literal home-wrecker ethos run amok.

But maybe that's what makes the movie worthwhile, that it can be interpreted a little differently every time you see it. I will say it's still easy to see why it was such a runaway hit, it really moves it won't be ignored either.