THE CADRE I

rial'

Not since "Last Tango in Paris" has there been a film so powerful as this one. Set in the United States during and after WW II, "The way We were" had, in fact, nothing to do with that era: it used that setting'to facilitate the expression of its themes. Starring Barbara Striesand and Robert Redford, "The way we were" was one of the finest expressions of the existential themes: courage, committment, involvement, purpose and meaning.

Striesand (Katie) was a committed activist in the Communist YOuth Group, com- mon on campus during that era. She was involved in the political problems which most everyone else passed off. Characteristic of her committment and her involve— ment she possessed the cour- age to respond without which her committment would have been to no avail. Life did not come easy to her: she couldnft pass her time en— gaged in idlek talk or idle pursuit because these reflect the opposite and negative aspects of a committed life. She was reflective and con- templative regarding every— thing she did —— which she did seriouslyl!

Redford (Hubbell) on the other hand, was quite the opposite. He was the clas— sical Bourgeois - liberal all-American boy. Typical of this kind he found it quite easy to follow the line of least resistance, to compromise himself to attain his end, etc. Responsible reflection was foreign to him. He was the opposite to Katie. He was, in other words, without substance. Courage, committment, involvement, & meaning were just a hassle. Katie remarked to him "things come easy to you," this is characteristic of one without substance, of one who does not reflect.

What Katie was to realize eventually was that there was no real ground for main- taining their relationship — even though she had genuine love for him characterized by those qualities I men- tioned earlier. The break (they were married with a ch- ild at this point) was much easier for Hubbell than it was for Katie: and she had to take the initiative. Their

-marriage came easy to Hubbell, but not to Katie. She would suffer a loss -- not him.

Such is it when one like Hubbell who is of little sub— stance encounters one of substance such as Katie. It is the perfect recipie for a tragedy —— and thatfls what "The Way We Were" was —- a tragedy.

It was far more than just

.' TUES. APRIL 2.1974 Page 2.

THE WAY WE WERE:

//

a review

a movie, however: it is contemporary and reflects a painful reality of out time an age when the youth are, for the most part, lacking

in the development of Katie's qualities -- who are indeed, much like Hubbell. But the solutions to the contemporary problems require Katie's qualities.

The Capitalist—Bourgeois WD‘ have cultivated an individual- ism among everyone so as to facilitate the manipulation of the economy has led to a "do your own thing" philoso- phy: it has led to a separ- ation of one from the other to the'point where each is in his own individualistic shell -- and no one dare in- terferell When our youth were given

an» I M.

the values of success,_pres- tige, status, worth., domina— tion over others, the in- evitable result would be the competition of one with ano- ther and the development of sly tactics to facilitate

the actualization of those values. To attain the actual— ization of these values one does not need courage, com— mittment, involvement, pur— pose or meaning; indeed, all

~one needs is expediency,

"knowing the right people", how to compromise, etc. Capitalist values prevent the development of the real human qualities-—— thus you get Hubbells not Katies. But, the contemporary probl- ems demand the presence of Katie. I think we're in troublell

ll tutu lor'lhc- Huhdou-hm but!“

‘The charge is assault with a deadly weapon... Truth. ’

[anemia Illa Edfinl

Dear Mr. Editor:

The Tuesday, March 26 edi— tion of the Cadre carried an editorial concerning the recent on-campus lecture of Jean vanier, to which I feel motivated to express a reaction. The writer of that editorial, Stan Dalton I assume, takes a hefty swing at Vanier_for failing to id- entify in his talk the "true" reason for the problems of our society - namely, the domination of the many peo- ple of the lower classes by the few people of the upper class, the economic, political and military elite as the writer calls them. This is a poor basis for criticism of Vanier's lec- ture. The main thrust of Vanier's talk was that eve— ry person must take more re- sponsibility for the well being of his fellows. He might have been able to drag in what the writer of the editorial deems essential, the supposed domination of the oppressed by the wealthy capitalist. Why did he not

do so? Probably becauSe he did not feel that aspect of our society to be essential to the message he wanted to bring to his hearers: So why criticize him for this? Everyone marches to a dif- ferent drummer. Just because Vanier did not pound out the same tune as the writer of the editorial pounds'6ut week after dreary week is no reason to run him down. The writer of the edi- ._ torial is, I think, correct when he says that Vanier, in identifying the problems of today, told his listeners little that they didn't know already. The greatness of his talk (and I do mean greatness) lay in its \ presentation. He was really able to bring home to peo- ple that which he had to say. One could see he is a man -who practices humanity as well as talks about it and, as such, he deserves praise and admiration rather than the criticism he received in the pages of the Cadre. Richard Ellis

can lie 5