[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: this ya-ya girl thing and other academic rants
hola lista :)
steve dijo:
>passion and interest out of the relationship of Sidda
>and Connor.
i don't have the original to compare it too, but i
walked away thinking she deeply loved him, however
little i saw of the "day after day" reality of it.
>their oddities are VERY firmly rooted in their past
>together a need for all...
from the film, i didn't walk away thinking they were
weird 'cause they were southern :) the major issues
b/w sidda and her mom seemed to have pretty specific
roots.
>Sidda was abused by her mother. She was beaten
>severely, but she also loves her
>mother, and her mother loves her.
all this i walked away with too.
>The whole point of the story is for the
>two of them to really discover who they are by
>exploring who the other is.
strangely enough, i walked away with this too (even if
it wasn't as artful and thorough as wells must have
written it).
>It is not a tale of a group of eccentric old ladies
>from Louisiana primarily. That is only a small
>fraction of Wells' intent.
what i think is the most frustrating then (after
reading your comments), from the end of a
first-reader-then-viewer is not what the film did
wrong but rather what the viewers did?
i didn't even bother to mention the importance of the
"real story" (which had me thinking and writing for
some time), but i brought out the quirky southern
women--b/c they were funny. i don't laugh that hard
and have my eyes water up in the same movie usually.
it was a pleasant change.
the filmmakers emphasized the women's oddities enough
(maybe too much for some) to make them accessible to a
sense of humor. and a proverbial "we" ran with it :)
but perhaps we ran away with still more--which seems
to gell with rebecca wells' books (from i read of
steve's descriptions).
>True, but the issue of "chick flicks" is that there
>is some fundamental essence that these films claim to
>hold that reaches the experience of
>every female audience member.
is that truly stated anywhere :)? i think they do a
lot that resonates with parts of women from many walks
of life (according to what i read in some listee
definitions of "chick flick")--very much in terms of
fantasies of really digging deep relationally for some
or of falling in some fairy tale love story that's
cute and lined with the best home decorating for the
cuteness that is meg ryan. (btw, i don't see any more
of her movies b/c they are all the same story--why
waste the money?)
the world is broken, fallen, screwed up etc. often
superficial balms are sought--by MANY women. we could
talk about integrity and what's real, what's art etc,
but let's face it: the "majority" doesn't frequently
pursue it, laud it, buy it, discuss it etc. that's
why fred, steve, j. marie misma and others have jobs
and/or do programs in universities :)
i don't think we can hold every entertainment
affiliate accountable for the integrity of its
clientele. mass chaos that is.
it does irk those who care though. and from what i
gather, steve: you care. i don't want to put that
down at all. in fact, with the feminism comments,
you're preaching to the choir. i think my masters,
while called "hispanic literature and linguistics"
really was: theory: a look at feminist and gender
studies :) i buy not all but some parts of it.
>Sure there might be a number of people who
>have the experience that the men are rational farmer
>types and the women flip out, but
>I think that the more common experience is that it is
>a mixture of the two.
oh i don't know. especially if the ya-ya media is
breeding idiocy :)
>No, it is because it is not a classic feminist move
>that it is so dangerous.
and as a student of that classic feminism, i'm not
quite sure that the discipline and its various schools
haven't lost the point much of the time--which leads
me to believe that such peril might not always be
legit. perhaps it's not always dangerous that
feminism cast its shadow elsewhere once in a while.
>that to some extent before I am married. The movie
>is not this. It does not hold true to the spirit and
>essence of the book which is not about wacky
i don't think that wells would even want the
responsibility of thoroughly guiding you through
issues before you commit your heart in marriage. we
all have to deal with where we come from before
stepping up to that plate :)
while i'm inspired by many things regarding love and
rooting out evil :), in terms of counsel and help,
i'll go to my pastor or parental type of friend who's
already lived it for that in the time leading up to
those great vows.
>Both female leads in the book have moments of crisis
>when they battle themselves and those around them
>to recognize who they really are. The director of
>the film does not bring this forward at all in the
>film and instead settles for pap, feel-good...
maybe the business of humor was to add some healthy
lightness to that deep search. it's hard, but the day
i take it and myself so seriously as to perhaps think
it the "most important thing going on in the universe"
is an off day.
i think the movie brings up the struggles (perhaps not
in their most realistic forms though). sidda almost
calls off her marriage (well, pretty much does) and
her mom's is more evident in the ashley judd times.
the movie does not give it enough time though, to be
realistic. but i guess we just suspend disbelief and
move on?
[re: teen films and teens]
>and I have found a number of reputable critics who
>accurately, I think,
>describe the process as much more subtly interactive.
i don't disagree that this happens, but in my short
years, i have been able to figure out that it's not
necessarily healthy and therefore decide NOT to let
that go unconsciously monitored. i overtly think
through characters and possible places of
identification and look for it :) i don't just
swallow it and say "mmmmmm."
now, i'm not a teenager; but the vulnerability of that
time is one that reeks havoc on all life :) i think
it would happen with or without the plagues of the
industry hurling unhealthy models at our dear teens.
i do care--but in my order of priorities (academic and
otherwise), i don't always consider that the biggest
fish to fry. i guess to each his own that way. and
as honorable as most scholars want scholarship to be,
oddly and cruelly enough, they still have to go where
the money goes. to do research, to get grants, to
write books etc.
>for a member of the audience to connect to then why
>bother watching the film?
to laugh. to be distracted from your own life a few
moments (which would imply that those represented
would be a different set of lives in a different
story). i do think there is a place for
identification and relating, but maybe we don't always
have to do that.
>to say that these films properly instruct how one
>should deal with life
>situations, but they show how one might do so.
what ever happened to older people (respectively)
helping to do that? what about all the discussions we
have with our peers about such things? what ever
happened to mentors? they don't exist in high enough
numbers, but some do take responsibility for their
own, younger dear ones. such is a family/community
affair.
i realize that in our times, in the absence of the
more experienced leaders/mentors, we see all manner of
terrible replacements. but although movies and books
(celebrities etc) end up in those places doesn't mean
that they ought, that they sought it out deliberately
or that they should be judged accordingly. even if
they gave "the right message," it would not be the
same as a parent, friend or mentor. it wouldn't be
walked out, side by side, with long-term results to
watch.
none of our indictments will attack the problem there.
take care,
j. marie
=====
All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful. -Flannery O'Connor
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/