War of the Roses: Theoretical

War of the Roses: Theoretical Perspective

In the 1989 film by director Danny DeVito (1989), War of the Roses, we see the deterioration of affection between a man and woman who become lost to one another through alienation of affection in lieu of love for "things." In other words, the couple, Oliver (Michael Douglas) and Barbara Rose (Kathleen Turner), transfer love from one another to their wealth, and especially their home furnished with the Staffordshire figures they collect, as it was their shared love for antiques that brought them together. The film is narrated by DeVito, who stars in the film as Gavin D'Amato, Oliver's friend and partner at the law firm where he works.

Oliver has moved up to partner at his law office, but has sacrificed his self-image with Barbara over the years of focusing on his partnership. Barbara, whose obsession with the house that they now live in, has, as their two children, Josh (Sean Astin) and Carolyn (Heather Fairfield), are going off to college. There is a housekeeper, Susan (Marianne Sagebrecht) who is the unbiased third party as the Roses' marriage begins to crumble amidst their house and collection of things that even as the marriage crumbles, continues to be important to both Oliver and Barbara.

Gavin devises a plan that allows Oliver to legally remain in the house. The plan makes both husband and wife crazy, and in the end, the Roses not only destroy their family, their careers, their house, but each other too.

The Family Functional and Conflict Perspectives Define the Roses' War

The Roses can be viewed from the functional perspectives. From the functional perspective, the Roses meet the elements of fading love and the changing role of women. After years of marriage, and one that began with Oliver's struggle through law school and helping to raise the children while Barbara worked as a waitress; the Roses have acquired everything they could possibly hope for: the house, the children are in college, Oliver has made partner, and they have a vast collection of Staffordshire and Baccarat crystal. The Baccarat becomes an issue early on, when Oliver and Barbara no longer need to struggle to pay the rent, and Oliver is now focused on becoming a law partner. At a dinner party held at the Rose's new and elegant apartment, one of the guests compliments the crystal, and, while Barbara's mouth is full, Oliver asks Barbara to tell the story of their Baccarat crystal -- there is a pregnant pause as the guests, all eyes on Barbara, await to her story. Barbara is a poor storyteller, and Oliver interrupts, "To make a long story short," and cleans up Barbara's ending of the story. Throughout dinner, Barbara notices, too, that Oliver has developed a strange, almost forced laugh. Oliver also appears embarrassed by his plump and overweight twins Josh and Carolyn, when they come into the dining room to say goodnight, and ask to take more desert to their rooms with them. The Roses, in viewing Oliver's role and perception of his family, meet the criteria of Structure-Functional Perspective, because they have created their family and life as a social institution (Lamanna and Riedmann 29).

Later that night as the couple is preparing to go to bed, they rehash the events of the dinner, and we can see that they have grown apart. Barbara comments on Oliver's phony laugh, and Oliver defends his laugh and his behavior in interrupting Barbara's Baccarat story, by explaining that he has his eyes on the prize of becoming law partner, and if that means he has to force a laugh on occasion, then he is willing to do that for his family. Even at this point in the movie, however, the Roses do not recognize that they are in trouble as a couple and as a family. It is also clear that the love is fading, at the beginning or early days of their marriage, Barbara would never have criticized Oliver, but would have acquiesced without comment. It is perhaps that acquiescence that is at the root of their increasing dysfunction.

Later, when Barbara has finally made the deal on the house of "their" dreams, a house she has been watching and waiting for years to go on the market; she is at the right place at the right time when the owner dies, and she gets the house. All the years that she is raising Josh and Carolyn, Barbara is redoing their dream house mansion. Now, the children are leaving for college, and Barbara's role is changing and she expresses her confusion about this while interviewing Susan, the housekeeper that Oliver has arranged for her interview. For Oliver, the housekeeper is a status symbol, but for Barbara, the housekeeper is an acknowledgement that her house, though full of things, is empty, and that, especially with Susan there, she has no responsibility in her life and makes no contribution to her family. The structure in her life has suddenly changed, and she is not facing it well. Barbara is manifesting the conflict and feminist perspectives of family (Bus and Malamuth 296).