[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: Ya-Ya or yada yada
hey guys,
steve's message only got to me and was meant for all
so hear ya go :)
--- GidgetTMsMan at aol_com wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:34:27 -0400
> From: GidgetTMsMan at aol_com
> To: fionaeval at yahoo_com|, fionaeval at yahoo_com ("J.
> Marie Hall")
> Subject: Ya-Ya or yada yada
>
> I was going to reply to you alone since I have
> gotten a number of angry e-mails from listies who
> don't like their boxes filled with crap they don't
> care about, but i really care about the issues that
> are in this e-mail. I also think they they relate
> to why I relate so strongly to the music of OTR.
>
> > hola lista :)
>
> You start a discussion that I'm interested in, and
> you better watch out.
>
> > >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.
>
> You see there is a difference between the hollywood
> romance that was depcited on the screen and the REAL
> meaning of love as it was shown in the book. Much
> of the book was couched in the reference of Sidda
> also learning to love again when faced with the pain
> love can bring as well. Connor came across as a
> very nice guy, but he didn't seem three-dimensional
> in any way.
>
> > >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.
>
> Certainly they did in the film, but in the book the
> troubles are much broader and more difficult to
> grasp. In the book, Sidda get the Divine Secrets
> journal and is left in the PAcific Northwest to try
> to decode it on her own. She does not have the
> immediate flashback that the film gives. In the
> movie, Sidda seems to know everything that happens
> in the flashbacks as they happen whereas in the
> book, these events are clues given only to the
> reader.
>
> > >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.
>
> Sure, but how did you reach that conclusion. Was it
> given to you carefully or was it beaten into you
> with a 2x4
>
> > >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).
>
> Again, what skill is used to pass this on to the
> audience. The art is the whole point otherwise one
> might as well just be sat down and told, "Life Suck.
> Sometimes parents do things wrong even though they
> love you because they are only human themselves."
> What fun would that be?
>
> > >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 don't think it is the viewer's fault. I believe
> the whole film from trailer to end credits is
> packaged as almost a fantasy. It lacks the ability
> to show that it is rooted in a stark reality.
>
> > 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.
>
> You should really get out more then. Either that or
> I need to get out less. Granted there were some
> moments that were amusing, but they weren't funny
> because they were real, but they were funny because
> they were absurd. While there is nothing wrong with
> absurd humor, but this is something that alters the
> central vision of the artist.
>
> > 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).
>
> Well's books are not really that odd. What makes
> her books funny are the passages when we see the
> contrast between the reality of these children's
> lives and the manner in which they deal with it. At
> the same time, there is a deep sadness, much deeper
> than the melodramatic tripe in the film that shows
> the superficial pain but does not show how the
> formation of the Ya-Yas in some ways excluded Sidda
> from discovering herself as she grew up. They
> insulated her but also smothered her.
>
> > >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 :)?
>
> Well, yes in SUNY's Film Criticism 2000 there is a
> section on literary adaptation that touches on this
> point as well as a section on the "chick flick" In
> addition to this the are a number of feminist
> critics and supporter to the genre including Laura
> Mulvey and bell hooks who talk about film's general
> effect on an audience and then discuss it specific
> interaction with those that it most strong asks to
> identify with it.
>
> > 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?)
>
> True enough, though her performance as an alcoholic
> with Andy Garcia in the early 90s was very well
> done. True "chick flicks" do work on these levels,
> but you have to then ask yourself, "Why?" Why do
> these fanatasies appeal to women everywhere, and do
> they appeal to women everwhere? There has to be
> some sort of need that is fulfilled by the film for
> the viewer. What do these narratives tell the
> viewer about the world around them? How should she
> solve her problems? Especially relational ones?
>
> > 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 think that the majority would pursue depth if they
> did not consider it stigmatized. I have shown my
> students films of great depth, and trust me that
> these kids are far from brains, and they really do
> react to the depth of a well-crafted film or
> narrative in a way that is far superior to the
> momentary joy that might be gotten from "CRossroads"
> The problem is that they the culture that they
> engage in dictates the culture that they engage in,
> and until the masses realize that they don't have to
> dwell on the superficial, then they will wallow in
> the mud and consider their porcine selves to be
> kings.
>
> > i don't think we can hold every entertainment
> > affiliate accountable for the integrity of its
> > clientele. mass chaos that is.
>
> Absolutely not. I would say it is the consumer's
> responsibility in a capitalist culture to do so. We
> must instruct the consumer and producer alike. That
> is the role of discernment. The corporate producers
> are continually telling every demographic with
> growing accuracy what they must be like and what
> they must do to remain ther or improve their lot.
> If we don't hold the producers of culture
> accountable, then who would we blame? Wouldn't you
> be angry with an industrialist that forced products
> that are potentially harmful to the user and
> society? We are made at tobacco and alcohol for
> targetting kids. We are irrate when companies dump
> harmful chemicals into the environment, but we do
> nothing when entertainment producers do the same in
> the cultural environment. I'm not talking about
> violence or sex on TV or in music or in movies.
> These are merely symptoms of a deeper disregard for
> the effect that ones work has on the community.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well good for you, but you should now have the
> feeling of obligation to instruct all of those
> around you in what you have learned. It starts in
> the small and simple ways. Talk about why the book
> describes the story one way and the film another.
> Talk about how that might change the message.
> Marshall McLuhan says that the media is the message,
> and that might be true to some extent. Still, there
> is now reason that two different media might
> communicate the same lessons in slightly different
> ways.
>
> > >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 :)
>
> I'm not sure about this. One thing that troubles me
> is that I'm not sure if there is true growth between
> Connor and Sidda in the film. It seems to me that
> Sidda flips out leaves Connor emotionally and then
> comes back in the end sorta, but in the book Wells
> very importantly has the exploration occur far from
> the home that begat all of the doubts. Then when
> Connor forces Sidda to return to Louisiana with him
> there is a strong feeling that for the first time
> when she introduces Connor to everyone that she is
> finally accepting him into and intimacy that she had
> held from him.
>
> > >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.
>
> How do you mean? Sure feminists seem to complain
> about everything, and I think that organized
> feminism, much like the organized church, very often
> misses the point. Still, I think there is a problem
> with something that appeals to women as strongly as
> "chick flicks" that seems to provide a solution
> while at the same time solving nothing. Its like a
> sitcom. Every episode of "Leave it to Beaver"
> involves the Beav' screwing up in some way. At the
> end of the episode everything seems to be solved,
> but we all that by next episode he will have
> forgotten what he learned and return to doing
> something stupid. The same could be said of Friends
> or Seinfeld. In Seinfeld, this was the source of
> much of the humor: the awaresness by the characters
> of their own nature as characters who are doomed to
> make the same mistakes again and again.
>
> > >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 :)
>
> I think she has to some extent taken that
> responsibility onto herself whether she wants it or
> not because this is the framework of her story.She
> is not writing a "How to" book, but she is depicting
> a "map of reality" through her writing that the
> readers learn from. They take her "map" and compare
> it to theirs. They don't necessarily accept it
> blindly, but there is an interaction on some
> fundamental level otherwise the book would hold no
> interest.
>
> > 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.
>
> I think that you are missing the point. Everyone
> gets information on the world from a variety of
> sources. Sure, because I see "Fight CLub" I am not
> going to go out and start one in my basement, but
> there is some connection between me and the
> character where I recognize his feelings within
> myself or the potential of these feelings. This is
> the very nature of narrative within a society. You
> might not think that you are redefining your world
> because you go see a movie, and you might not be
> given a single film, but if you see lots of movies,
> TV shows, music, ads, conversations, etc then this
> can build up to a surprising degree to define who we
> are. Think about how you determine who you are.
> What terms can you use to tell other about what you
> stand for? How did you learn those values? What
> contributed to you holding them and to the people
> who taught them to you? How do you choose friends?
> Mates? Lovers? What is desirable? These things are
> all defined by some sort of cultural interaction as
> we grow up whether it is parents, friends, clergy,
> etc.
>
> > >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'm not talking about the most important thing in
> the universe because paradoxically, the most
> important things are the miniscule things that add
> up to big things. If nothing else, the Divine
> Secrets teaches us this. In the book and the movie
> to some extent, the journal given to Sidda is filled
> with the tiny bits and remnants that add up to what
> the Ya-Yas are. There are ticket stubs, photos,
> letters. In the book, the whole meaning of "Gone
> with the Wind" to the girls is vital to their
> eventual lives and their dissappointments.
>
> > 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?
>
> Suspension of disbelief is vital to film, but in the
> case of something as powerful as the novel, the
> filmmaker has an obligation to use this as a plumb
> to their efforts. I am not looking for realism of
> plot but of soul and spirit.
>
> > [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."
>
> No one does, or at least the vast majority of
> audiences don't. That is their intrinsic power.
> Sometimes narratives are most powerful when we think
> them through. I am not saying that this whole
> process is bad. I am just saying that there is no
> way for you or anyone in today's society to think
> through every cultural map that is thrown at us.
> You would get nothing accomplished. Furthermore the
> places where these narratives interact often defy
> conscious thought. Their power comes in our
> assumptions as to how films should work. The fact
> that you go through consciously at times and
> consider their effects shows merely that you were
> conditioned by different cultural factors than
> others. What makes you consider this process
> important? This in and of itself is a cultural
> indicator at many small forces at work.
>
> > 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.
>
> The thing is, and this is perhaps most interesting
> in the research that I have been doing is that teens
> usually pick up on the visual cues better than any
> other generation. They are able to sort through
> mass amounts of data and pick out the things that
> ring false to them. At the same time a big number
> of their main cultural influences inform them over
> time that these disparities from reality are to be
> desired. Just look at the evolution of body image
> in men and women for the smallest example.
>
> > 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.
>
> The funny thing is that most academics don't really
> go where the money goes. It is merely the academics
> that we encounter through the media that do this,
> and this is a factor of the media's own interests.
> If you really consider the vast quantity of
> academics in America, maybe 10% of the humanities at
> least are really chasing after those big grants.
> The rest really focus on what interests them because
> surprisingly enough If one person goes through
> school and become fascinated with a topic of study,
> then probability dictates that others will share
> that interest. They will have differing viewpoints,
> but the fact remains that the interest is there
> especially in the study of cultural issues.
>
> > >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.
>
> There is no way that you can't identify at some
> level. You really need to think about it. Why do
> we laugh? What makes a joke funny? Why do I think
> it is unbelievably hilarious that the little guy in
> "High Fidelity" take the airconditioner out of the
> window and smashes Tim Robbins in the head with it?
> To some extent comdey is based on taking our
> assumptions of how the world works and twists them
> on their head (no pun intended). In order to do
> this, the film or joke must relate to your
> experience of the world culturally otherwise it
> wouldn't work. It's the same reason that jokes
> often don't translate well. The very language that
> we use belies some of our cultural assumptions and
> to some extent who we are.
>
> > >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.
>
> Sure, I think that this is the older generation's
> responsibility, but what else is entertainment and
> art other than a segment of the culture
> communicating an aspect of their cultural outlook to
> the rest of the culture. This is a subject that
> could be expanded on to a vast extent, but I will
> stop otherwise everyone will hate me. Now the
> question remains who will tell those stories, and
> how will we react thier telling. If you think about
> it almost all value and culture is communicated via
> narrative (and experience, but that is really a
> lived narrative at least in my view).
>
> > i realize that in our times, in the absence of the
> > more experienced leaders/mentors, we see all
> manner of
> > terrible replacements.
>
> See, I don't think they are terrible at all. You
> said it before. They might be flawed, but I think
> the power of story is vital to creating a desirable
> community.
>
> > 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.
>
> Maybe art and entertainment should be held to that
> standard. It htink that at its best, great film does
> this. It presents a deftly and carefully crafted
> experience and relates it to a mass audience in an
> effort to communicate an experience or value, and
> the quality comes with the filmmaker recognizing the
> responsibility that they hold to the community.
> There are those that say that great art enriches and
> enlightens all: the creator, the audience, and the
> critic (I list separately for ideological reasons)
>
> > none of our indictments will attack the problem
> there.
>
> I think so. one of my professors wrote a fantastic
> book that has been MUCH too rarely read called
> "Redeeming Television", and although it is
> specifically aimed at a Christian audience of TV.
> It could be applied to a secular audience of any
> aspect of cultural interaction.
>
> I'm sorry that I write so much, but I have been out
> of school for more than a month, and I crave
> intellectual stimulus. I also have been working on
> my thesis in the meantime, and I am sure you can
> readily see how my advisors say that is is too long
> despite the fac that I'm still a year from having to
> have it done. Imagine if I had to support all the
> points I have made here from a number of reputable
> sources and examples, and you will have my first
> book once I write it and get it published.
>
> So enjoy it for free while you can.
>
> Steve
=====
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/