The Safety of Objects focuses on four suburban families (and pool guy) beginning with rotating breakfast scenes. When Julie Gold (Jessica Campbell) brings in her brother's guitar, we wonder how she gets away with scoring a mark on the back of it, but one look at Paul (Joshua Jackson) tells us he's not going to complain any time soon. Flashback memories interspersed with current family scenes show his promising life now frozen at 19 by a tragic accident a year or two ago. How were the others involved in it, and what are they doing about it now?

Forgive me for getting all psychological­—Freud did say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar­—but it seems to me that a lot of peoples' inward workings here get played out in their relations with ordinary objects of suburbia. Julie started it with her score-keeping on the back of her brother's guitar, but when I see, for instance, a frustrated woman heaving antique furniture out of the house for her ex's new woman, I start to think her feelings are directed at more than a hunk of wood.

Let's take safety. Safe driving. There's a lot of bad press about the dangers of texting or phoning while driving, and I was chagrined to hear of a fellow who stepped out into traffic while trying to text and walk at the same time. Then one morning I walked into a telephone pole guy wire while trying to read my watch. Our objects don't have to be very high tech to endanger us, and yet it doesn't do any good to blame the watch for my own clumsy mistake. In "The Safety of Objects" there is plenty of guilt to go around.

The audience is at a disadvantage for not seeing a linear depiction of the lives and events that led up to the accident; we have to piece it together from comments, flashbacks, and changed lives­—“How did I get here?”. But did scientists need an eyewitness account to develop, say, a history of dinosaurs? No, they were able to piece it together from what evidence they had. The intelligent viewer, likewise, has but to use his powers of reason and observation to come up with what went on.

Darwin used the best hypothesis that would explain the cause for the effects observed. If he knew then what we know now about the complexity of life, he'd more likely have come up with some theory of intelligent design, but that doesn't mean the theory of evolution is going away. Likewise, for all the hardiness of modern isms, "The Safety of Objects" is more likely to depict some kind of “sexual constitution” in violation­—“There are no rules!” ¶“Of course, there's rules.”­—than it would a playboy or feminist philosophy. To quote George F. Gilder, Sexual Suicide (New York: Quadrangle, 1973) p. 140, “When the feminists speak of the need to consider us all ‘human beings’ and ‘people,’ what they mean is autonomous rational individuals: men and women without powerful sexual drives reaching into all their relationships and without kinship ties binding them to their very identities.” There are plenty of “safe” objects that come into play in "The Safety of Objects"­—“You start collecting things, you start to care about stuff. When you have stuff and it's gone, that makes you feel like you disappeared. Nothing should make you feel that way except a person.”­—, but the people are shown to be “men and women with… powerful sexual drives reaching into all their relationships and with… kinship ties binding them to their very identities.” If you're of a feminist persuasion, then you'll especially have to employ “suspension of disbelief” in order to enjoy this movie, but it can be done. Couldn't, say, a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist enjoy the special effects of a creation scene in a sci-fi adventure? It's only a movie. Why feel threatened? President Ronald Reagan in addressing a women's group once paid them a high compliment by telling them that if it weren't for the civilizing influence of cave­women on cavemen, they'd still be wild men. The women took umbrage that Reagan thought women should mind the cave while the men hunted, but that was because they didn't understand the thought of George Gilder which the president was echoing. I don't want to dwell too much on it, but for my reader who isn't familiar with him, his ideas are embedded throughout the movie, so I'll run them by you as reflected in the various scenes.

His starting point is that the sexual equipment is different in men and women­—big surprise! Sure enough, in "The Safety of Objects" we can start with a (thankfully tactful) scene of a couple kids playing I'll-show-you-mine-if-you'll-show-me-yours­—“Do you wanna see it?” ¶“There's not so much to see.” Mostly we have to use our imagination, but we get the picture.

Moving on to functionality, the men's is easier to cover, because there's not much to it. Gilder says that men's sex function is limited to a single brief act, the performance of which is easily frustrated. And, sure enough, the guy working at the mall can perform his total male sex function with his girlfriend on his fifteen minute break once he finds a bit of privacy. Men's sexual function: very brief. Guy has to get Julie home in thirty minutes for her midnight curfew? He can do that and whatever else needs doing and only be running fifteen or twenty minutes behind. He's performed in kind all the sex he'll ever be doing in his life. That's a man's complete repertoire. And even that isn't always successful­—“It's soft. Isn't it supposed to be hard?” … ¶“We were drunk, passed out, before anything happened.”

Contrast that to a woman's sex function which encompasses more than a man's. A young girl's body starts to change to prepare her for eventual child­bearing­—“I can't get over what a little lady you've become, pumpkin!” ¶“I'm not a pumpkin; I'm a girl.” … ¶“You're getting older.” ¶“But I don't feel any different than I did before. Growing up doesn't make any sense!” Then she gets her monthly reminders which will last most of her life­—“Oh honey, put some clothes on. I don't want you handling the food naked. It's not sanitary.” Then comes a woman's few moments of pleasure, pregnancy, gestation (nine months), child­birth (ouch!)­—“I'm a damn good mother.” Then comes suckling her young­—“Man, I should never have shown that kid my b**bs.” Weaning the kid, maybe postpartum depression, and eventual menopause­—“A woman under eighteen years of age has a three times higher metabolism than a woman of thirty five. Now, isn't that something to look forward to?” … ¶“You should go get some sleep. It will help with those wrinkles, honey.”

A woman's sexual function is more encompassing than a man's, and their rhythms are different. A man's is geared towards quick releases, while a woman's unfolds over time. The woman's is more amenable to marriage, a man's to fooling around. If a woman submits her sexual rhythms to a male's, then trouble ensues. They both need to behave, to be sure, but a loose woman seems more compromised than a loose man, because a woman has a lot more bodily validation of her own sexuality, per above, than a man does his which he may validate only by a single act­—“I'll have a double vodka martini.” ¶“Looking for courage?” … ¶“I think I could give you some­thing you need, and I think you could give me some­thing I need. That's a win-win situation. What do you say?” … ¶“I don't go boozing it up and trying to pick up anything that walks. You got me wrong.”

The woman's natural bond with her offspring that grew in her womb is amply demonstrated by Esther's (Glenn Close) tender care of comatose Paul­—“I love you so much. My first boy.”­—while her husband won't even look at him. A woman has a natural connection, but a man needs reminders­—“You haven't seen them in four months.” It's necessary for culture to create artificial bonds between a man and his offspring­—“Has he taught you how to grill? It's a father's job to teach his son. These kind of skills have to be passed on.” … ¶“Going fishing.” … ¶“Baseball.”

Lacking a natural connection with child such as a mother has, the man needs to be given some way to connect with the mother-child diad, and that has evolved first as protector­—“I see you as our protector”­—and hunter, then as a provider as one mode in society replaced another­—e.g. Shelby Yastrow, Undue Influence (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1990) p. 214: “Litigation has become a war in which paper is used instead of bullets and bombs”. This view is supported by George F. Gilder, pp. 94f, 105: “A man's socialization­—his productivity and his sense of community­—will be shaped, perhaps for a lifetime, by the nature of his job and sexual opportunities in the late teens or early twenties, when the question of marriage and career arises. The outcome is set by work and women. If he finds work that affirms his manhood and a girl who demands that his sexuality be submitted to hers­—submitted to love and family­—he is likely to become a valuable and constructive citizen. ¶“Single males­—and married ones whose socialization fails­—constitute our major social problem. They are the murderers, the rapists, the burglars, the suicides, the assailants, the psychopaths.” Because society has a vested interest in such socialization of males, making productive work available to them is one tenet of the “sexual constitution” à la Gilder, including as an incentive marginally more pay for the same job than when done by women. It's slightly more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it. Men also tend to be more focused on their careers than women are who take time out from climbing the corporate ladder in order to start a family.

Jim Train (Dermot Mulrooney), we see as a budding shop­lifter having problems with his socialization. He doesn't want more children­—“Susan, I don't want to have a baby.” He's not very connected to his existing family­—“Jim, it's the life you made. Don't act like it's not yours.” And when he's passed over for promotion at work, he unofficially walks off the job­—“I worked my butt off in that firm, and they gave Ryan a partnership and me a plaque. … How could this happen? It wasn't supposed to go like this. … ¶“Eight years. Eleven hours a day. That's 38,000 hours gone.” Man has nothing w/out a purpose. “Why is a man's purpose always his job? … ¶“I was busy working, supporting my family, keeping a roof over their heads. … ¶“I'll get my résumé together and start looking for another job. I have to see this as an opportunity to change my life. I have skills, and I'm gonna put them to use, and this time I want some credit for it.”

His life is about to intersect that of Esther and Julie. Esther's medical expenses for Paul left her strapped as far as helping her daughter Julie get something she wanted­—“I couldn't afford it. I'm a crappy mom.” So she's entered a contest for her daughter to win her a Z-100 SUV at the mall­—“Good clean car touching for hours.” The contestants put their hands on the car. The one whose hands remain on the car longest wins it. And Jim has become her unofficial pit crew­—“A man needs a purpose.” ¶“This contest that you're not even in is giving you a sense of purpose.” ¶“I know I can help.” ¶“You're gonna help this woman win a car and that's gonna make you feel useful and fulfilled.” ¶“Why is that so hard to understand?” ¶“This is a man I shared a home with, I had kids with. Whatever happened to love?”

Darwin the biologist might figure out what happens next, turn off the movie and go to bed, but for the rest of us, the movie spells it out. It's not physical endurance so much that produces a winner but the mind. The cerebral cortex where one does his thinking is next to the motor center which is why people when they think hard, tend to pace or gesture with their hands. Moving the hands off the car loses the contest. It ends up a neck and neck race between Esther and some man. Men have to be reminded to even think about their families. Women think about them all the time, especially one with so recent a tragedy­—“I want it out of my head.”

The winner gets the 30-grand car, the runner-up a check for $250 which outcome Jim didn't like as they'd both put in the same 51 hours­—“He won that contest fair and square. There's nothing to be upset about.”­—which leads to a teachable moment between Jim and the security guard outside the mall door. In the world I live in, feminists have us giving women equal pay for equal work irrespective of any “sexual constitution” à la Gilder, but in this little movie world we see a woman not getting an equal prize for equal time, for the very reason of her sex as it is defined in the movie and which we oh so readily relate to. Depending on your inward disposition, you may find this either shocking or hilarious. I myself found it fascinating as I did all the various other little subplots that made up this soap opera like movie.

It's based on A. M. Homes, The Book of Stories. There's a neat little doll house type presentation of the cast at the beginning that might help you keep the characters straight. You might want to pay attention to it as there are a lot of them to remember. Their acting was quite good in my opinion. The movie was set in the suburbs.

Whether you want to see it might depend on the load of guilt you carry as it tends to bring out those feelings­—“Guilt is alive and well.” My recommendation is that if you're planning to go out for dinner after­wards, take enough money for tips so you don't end up feeling even more guilty for not leaving one. And take a little extra in case your waiter's a man.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Good for Groups
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older