I am an OSC fan. Based almost entirely, I will allow, on the Ender series, although I have recently started the Homecoming series. I absolutely loved Ender's Game, and thought it was not only a great read, but also very insightful. I also love the movie "American Beauty". Therefore, I was rather shocked to find out today how much Mr. Card loathes it, and for what I thought were rather odd reasons. Making fun of middle class values, or the middle class way of life? I saw none of that. I saw sympathy for the human condition. I for one was extremely moved by this movie, just as I was extremely moved by Ender's Game. So learning that one of my favorite author's hated one of my favorite movies has introduced a certain level of confusion into my life. Can somebody help clarify why he thought this movie was so God-awful?
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
I concur, an explanation would be nice. The Card-American Beauty phenomenon bugs me too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"American Beauty" is on many levels a critique of the perceived "hollowness" of Middle America. For a variety of reasons, this irks OSC.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
One of the things I'm confused by is that I can't seem to reconcile the thematic elements of Mr. Card's own work with the reasons he seems to dislike American Beauty. In Speaker For The Dead (I haven't read it in a while, and don't have it with me, so correct me if I'm wrong) Novinha has an extra-marital affair for basically her entire marraige. She keeps the truth of her children's parentage from them for as long as possible. Mr. Card's problems with American Beauty seem to stem from the fact that the characters are all having promisuous sex. However, it seems to me that he spends an enormous chunk of "Speaker" trying to get across that Novinha, while perhaps having been mistaken about what would make her most happy, had not been inherently wrong to have the affair. Perhaps I am wrong about Mr. Card's intentions, but this dichotomy has got me stumped.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Mr. Card's problems with American Beauty seem to stem from the fact that the characters are all having promisuous sex.
I've never gotten that impression.
quote:However, it seems to me that he spends an enormous chunk of "Speaker" trying to get across that Novinha, while perhaps having been mistaken about what would make her most happy, had not been inherently wrong to have the affair.
I disagree again. The affair wasn't OK, it was understandable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So learning that one of my favorite author's hated one of my favorite movies has introduced a certain level of confusion into my life.
Rather than attempt to reconcile Mr. Card's views on AB with his writing in SftD, you might be better served by examining why this confuses you.
Perhaps you are projecting your own views onto Mr. Card. For example, you might be saying, "Were I to write X, it would be because I am thinking/feeling Y."
It's usually inaccurate to use that kind of thinking to understand someone else's motives.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote:I've never gotten that impression.
What impression did you get? Also, yes, you are probably right about the affair being understandable, but neither does American Beauty say that the behaviors it portrays are ok. It lets us into the characters lives, and lets us see why they made the choices they did. That's what makes it a great movie. That's what, it seams to me, Mr. Card is missing.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I dunno. I find it perfectly understandable for anyone to hate that movie. I do. I'll never get those two hours back.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I agree with quid, I do not understand why the movie is so loved. Perhaps it was because, when I first saw the movie, I was a teenage girl, but I was thuroughly disturbed by it. That being said, I have also been thuroughly disturbed by some of OSC's short stories, though for different reasons. I really like him, and I've read nearly everything I can get my hands on, but I was shocked at some of the darker tendencies in the short stories in "Changed Man". However, just because he can shock me and disturb me sometimes doesn't mean he can't be bothered or annoyed with things that seem similar in other media, because to him they may be shockingly different.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Perhaps he, like someone said, objects to the hollowness and shallowness of most of the characters and how that is supposed to reflect suburban life as a whole. I think it just reflects these specific people, Lester regressing into a 15 year old boy and harping on a 15 year old girl and his wife wanting money and success her husband cannot give her so she goes to another man to find it instead of working on their marriage. Really, most of the characters in that movie are frustrating except for that fellow with the cameras. I loved him. He saw the beauty in things and that's what Lester had to do but he never could see how beautiful life is until he was about to die. I just get disturbed by the fact that folks found the male on male kiss more disturbing then Lester with his big hairy man paws on that poor innocent girl. (Well, she was pretending not to be innocent.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was indifferent to American Beauty. It was okay, but I've never felt the need to watch it again, all these years after seeing it in the theaters.
If people didn't still go on and on about it, like it was filled with earthshattering revelations, I'd have forgotten about it years ago.
Plus, don't be surprised if you favorite author doesn't like your favorite movie; such is life. People like and don't like stuff and oftentimes have no reason for those preferences.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That's okay, he really loved "You've got Mail" which I loathed (because I found it misogynistic). People have a right to their own opinions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:People have a right to their own opinions.
Not in my view. :pirate:
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I just watched American Beauty for the first time a month or so ago. I did not like it. I found that I had spent over an hour getting to know people that I would not have walked across the street to get acquainted with. Maybe the camara man was competent. But, if the movie was intended as a "quadro de costumbre" or "slice of life" story, it was not honest. The movie was not one I appriciated.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:pirate:
I'm sure Card wouldn't have made such a big deal if it weren't awarded Best Picture by the Academy. Against the original Matrix, no less.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's better than Happiness. I wonder what he'd think of that movie. It was terribly depressing and about people even more pathetic than most of the characters in American Beauty. It was also dark. At least American Beauty had some hope in it, some hope that the characters would learn from their mistakes and evolve, een the dead one, but Happiness, that was just pure misery.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote: People like and don't like stuff and oftentimes have no reason for those preferences.
That is certainly not true. Sometimes people don't, or can't express a reason, but they have to have one, buried in their subconsious or whatever. It's got to be there somewhere. Also, it is unproductive to say such things. I'm trying to open up a dialogue, and answers like that aren't answers at all. They're cop outs.
Also, people certainly do have a right to their own opinions. And I have a right to try and figure out why they have that opinion.
Thirdly, The Matrix was cool, without a doubt. One of if not the most often imitated movies since its debut. But I didn't come out thinking that I knew anymore about life than I did when I went in.
Lastly, I see what you mean about the big deal because it was awarded Best Picture thing. I saw Crash before the Oscars, and frankly, I didn't think much of it. It felt like one long, disconnected cliche involving people who I didn't like and where for the most part simply annoying. It did have one or two scenes that achieved "Best Picture" quality, but as a whole, I thought it stunk. Wouldn't have mattered to me if it hadn't won best picture. But it did, and my respect for the Academy went down.
Anybody else have thoughts on Crash, by the way?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That is certainly not true. Sometimes people don't, or can't express a reason, but they have to have one, buried in their subconsious or whatever. It's got to be there somewhere.
They have to have one? Why?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Probably because it's interesting to me. To know why a person doesn't care for something can tell a lot about them and their attitude about things.
Crash made me cringe in parts, but it's a fascinating movie. Way better than that version with all the cars. I hate that stupid movie... It's pathetic. Why do they make movies like that? It's supposed to be artistic, but it's just boring and annoying and depraved. Of course, a lot of movies that get oscar nods really squeeze out the tradegy and pain. Perhaps I should see it again sometime now that I know how a certain scene turned out and it won't scare me as much.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let's see what OSC has to say on the subject. Here's one:
quote:"American Beauty" ... show[s] a nightmare vision of middle class life that bears no relation to anything I've actually seen (but resembles Hollywood society very closely -- everyone sleeping with everyone, taking drugs, and showing contempt for decency and law).
quote:How else can you explain the evil, nasty, and stupid movie "American Beauty" as a Best Picture winner? It's by-the-number formulaic "edgy" filmmaking, which always consists of ridiculing middle class suburban life -- by accusing them (falsely) of doing all the stuff that show business people actually do!
...
The Royal Tennenbaums is the "American Beauty" of this year -- a film apparently written by somebody who is deeply p----- off at his family and can't get over it.
quote:The Hollywood cliche these days, on the other hand, is that small towns and committed communities are evil and should be destroyed -- as in Pleasantville and American Beauty. Of course this is a lie, because the "small town" they invariably show is Hollywood -- a society dominated by hypocritical people who are more concerned about whether other people are obeying the rules than whether they actually live by any rules themselves.
quote:American Beauty Boy, suburban people are awful -- breaking marriage vows, having sex with inappropriate partners, self-obsessing with their bodies, being hateful to everyone around them. Oh, wait, that's how Hollywood is! Once again, Hollywood falsely accuses normal American families of being as vile as Hollywood actually is, and then awards themselves for this clever hypocrisy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I liked both movies. I think there's a danger in making characters into more than they are; one aggressively masculine ex-military character doesn't necessarily have to represent every male in the military, or dominant male head-of-the-family, or... Whatever. When one starts believing that Hollywood has an overarching agenda that goes into virtually every movie, suddenly there's bears lurking behind every bush. (Not necessarily speaking of Card, here.)
I can see how some might feel "Crash" was overbearing, but I don't entirely agree with the notion that it relies overly on stereotypes. To the contrary, its greatest weakness may be the predictability brought about by the screenplay's determination to turn stereotypes on their head: The religious and thoughtful carjacker, the racist cop who is also brave and heroic, the "enlightened" cop who can't overcome his unconscious prejudices when push comes to shove.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They weren't really a normal family though... or at least a family free of certain problems, again, he would have hated Happiness so much more because it was full of a lot of the stuff he said American Beauty had without the sort of hope American Beauty had... But, aw, well... Some places are LIKE that everywhere. There are no pockets of perfection in America or anywhere else.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Also, it is unproductive to say such things. I'm trying to open up a dialogue, and answers like that aren't answers at all.
Cry me a river. I could care less about your 'dialogue', or the inner turmoil your favorite author not liking your favorite movie causes you.
'Specially when your initial question is easily answered by a google search.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote: They have to have one? Why?
If somebody has an opinion, then they have to have a reason. No opinion, no reason.
.
quote: Cry me a river. I could care less about your 'dialogue', or the inner turmoil your favorite author not liking your favorite movie causes you.
'Specially when your initial question is easily answered by a google search
First of all, you apparently cared enough to #1 read the post, and #2 write a completely unnecessary and gratuitously ignorant reply. Secondly, I can't think of any issue involving somebody's inner thoughts and opinions that could be easily solved by a "google search." If you don't have something insightful to say. . . Well, actually, go ahead and say whatever. Reading weird, off topic replies is half the fun.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote: It's by-the-number formulaic "edgy" filmmaking, which always consists of ridiculing middle class suburban life -- by accusing them (falsely) of doing all the stuff that show business people actually do!
I disagree with Mr. Card on this point. This is probably we apparently have different moral values on this point. I didn't see this movie "accusing" anybody of anything. I know people in unhappy marriages. A lot of people. I think something like more than half of marriages end in divorce these days. That's not limited to Hollywood, that's everywhere. I know lots of people with drug problems. That also, is not limited to people in the industry. This is an uplifting movie, because it says that people, average people, can rise above those things. I have no idea why Mr. Card doesn't see that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Secondly, I can't think of any issue involving somebody's inner thoughts and opinions that could be easily solved by a "google search."
Except where, y'know, they write them out and publish them in column form.
quote:First of all, you apparently cared enough to #1 read the post, and #2 write a completely unnecessary and gratuitously ignorant reply.
Oh, I see what happened here. You think that you *own* the thread (or 'dialogue') because you started it. That's a common rookie mistake. Just because you chose not to recognize that it answered your question doesn't make my initial response either ignorant or unnecessary. As for 'gratuitous', well, show me a post anywhere on this board that doesn't fit that criteria (assuming by gratuitous you mean 'free' -- course, you could mean 'unnecessary' instead, but that would be redundant).
I personally find nothing more arrogant than people who can't imagine why everyone doesn't see things the way they do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I personally find nothing more arrogant than people who can't imagine why everyone doesn't see things the way they do.
I can't imagine why you would have a problem with that.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
The question still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. Continue the argument.
Morituri te salutamus!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How did Dag's post not answer your question?
quote:Can somebody help clarify why he thought this movie was so God-awful?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Frankly,
American Beauty's world was more realistic to me than OSC's fantasy of good-christian-suburban life. The MAJORITY of people I know come from broken families. It isn't just Hollywood--Drugs, gay couples, and teen sex are the norm in suburbia--and I live in the bible belt.
I mean, I've seen it--I've lived it. I highly doubt that my community is vastly different than the rest of the country. I think OSC might not realize that his family is NOT the normal American family.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think it's arrogant. I know that sometimes i am just curious about other people's perspectives on things. For example, those ruddy television shows.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Dag's post highlighted what OSC has written about American Beauty. It told what he thought of the movie. It doesn't say anything about why he thought it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I can't imagine why you would have a problem with that.
Really? You can't think of any reason why someone assuming their views on everything under the sun are the only possible views could be considered arrogant?
Seems unbelievably egocentric to me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You might want to try Google for your Latin bon mots as well. I mean, I'm as suspicious of Google as anyone.
And, er, I think Porter was being sardonic, if you look at the stem cell thread.
P.S. How come I couldn't find anything OSC had written about stem cells?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:That is certainly not true. Sometimes people don't, or can't express a reason, but they have to have one, buried in their subconsious or whatever. It's got to be there somewhere.
They have to have one? Why?
I agree with the original sentiment. People might not be able to articulate their reasons, but it seems intuitive to me that they must have some.
That being said, GForce, I think Dag has answered your questions. Card does give his reasons. He believes American Beauty to be a sneering attack on his culture. I haven't seen American Beauty—in part because of Card's warning, and a lack of convincing evidence to the contrary—but I agree with his assessment of Pleasantville. Posted by Jack Bauer (Member # 9182) on :
Card's reviews of "American Beauty" and "Pleasantville" were from waaaaaay back in the day on the frescopix website. And some follow-ups on the forum, but I beleive that was in the Big Mouth Lion days, and those reviews and posts are long gone.
The essence of Card's arguement against the argument that this is the way most families are was that, iirc, it became that way when we started believing Hollywood.
Essentially, the argument is in the posts Dag made. Hollywood, corrupt as it was, said, 'Isn't the world corrupt?' and the world said, 'Yes,' and went about trying to become as corrupt as Hollywood said they were.
There was more. He had opinions on everything from the military character in the movie (am I remembering that right?) to what must have been the writer's motivation, but having never seen the movie, and being a senile old man, I can't remember exactly what all was there.
My favorite from the "Pleasantville" review was how he turned it around so that the filmmakers, who were decrying what they felt to be puritanism, were actually being puritanical in a far more real sense of the word.
Incidently, my favorite review from those days was his one-sentence review of "Mars Attacks":
"Tim Burton has aliens come down and do all the wierd experiments he would like to do and kill all the people he would like to kill, making this a movie not meant to be seen by human beings."
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I don't believe for one second that "Hollywood" "convinced" society to become evil. Why? because BEFORE Pleasantville and American Beauty came out, I lived in a community that had drugs, gay couples, and broken families everywhere.
Does he think HIS community doesn't have gays, drugs, broken familes, and extra-marital sex? Or maybe his community only got that way because Hollywood told it to...right.
I think it's naive and unfair to the middle class to claim that they're all "decent, hard-working christian families" who have been painted black by Hollywood.
American Beauty was reality before and it's reality now.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know anything about your community. I absolutely do, however, believe that Hollywood paints an unrealistic picture of middle class, suburban society as being much more corrupt and hypocritical than it is. That doesn't mean these things don't happen, but I do buy into the idea that our popular culture has made it fashionable to believe that "everyone is doing it," so go ahead and do it yourself. I think if you've lived more than one generation, this is pretty hard to miss. So while I may disagree with some particular fine points, I largely do agree with OSC on this one.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
The middle class I've lived in for 21 years is accurately represented by most Hollywood films like American Beauty. Pastor's daughters do get pregnant. Respected members of the community do show up at AA meetings. Drugs are readily available to high school students.
I don't think most people consider it's fashionable or acceptable--with well over half of the community attending the 100-some churches in the area.
I do think that the righteous upper-middle class likes to ignore the reality of the rest of their community. Heck, when I was a kid I was part of it--dad had a 6-figure salary. We were decent, hard-working church-goers. When he left my mom and left us bankrupt, I woke up to some realities about life.
I'm not saying my specific story is the norm--but half of my friends come from similar backgrounds. That means the other half of the community might fit into OSC's idea of "decent folk"--but it's only half. American Beauty had truth in it, and I'm sure of it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Perhaps a better question might be: does Card disapprove of American Beauty because of its portrayal of "Middle American life", or for what it appears to approve and deride in that version thereof?
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
quote:The question still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. Continue the argument.
Oh yes, great sahib. I listen and obey.
...Or I exert my right as a teenager to snub any attempts to make me do something. It's more fun that way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Launchywiggin, I'm not sure what your point is. That infidelity and drug-use occur in the middle class? Nobody's really denying that. What I'm commenting on, and what I believe OSC is commenting on as well, is the attitude toward these occurences. One is not a hypocrite because one gets divorced. One is not a hypocrite even if one uses drugs or has some other addiction. People fall, and there is nobility in the effort to try to get back up. And tragedy in the failure to do so.
The attitude in many recent movies and shows about suburban life seems to be that nobody is what they seem. Everyone is a liar, and those who object to these social ills are hypocrites and closed-minded. Those who succumb to temptation have not failed in any way; they merely have been caught doing what everyone else is doing in secret. And only when people embrace their faults can they be truly honest and, if not upright, then at least less hypocritical.
In twenty-one years, I'm sure you've seen a lot. But I don't believe you can compare and contrast the attitudes of different generations at the same age and stage in development to each other. People born when you were a teenager are not yet teenagers. You have seen one generation--your own. When I made my comment about living more than one generation, which perhaps is what you are taking objection to with your comment on your twenty-one years, I was not condescending--particularly given that I did not know your age, nor did I refer to you. I was merely reporting my observations of how attitudes toward fidelity, drug use, and sex have changed between the time when I was a teenager and now, with the teenagers that I teach. I'm fairly confident that someone a generation older than I am would note a similar difference between the attitudes of his or her generation and my own, and a greater difference from the current one.
(And I'm not some überconservative decrying all social change. I believe that a lot of our attititudes have changed for the better, which is why I said OSC and I probably disagree on a lot of details. But my point here is simply that I agree with his assertion that there is in current popular culture a conscious portrayal of suburban middle class Americans as hypocrites, and of vice as commonplace and acceptable. Like OSC, I don't believe this is an accurate portrayal. And like OSC, I believe that, since we're talking about attitudes, saying something is true often enough has the potential to bring it about.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think I fit into any of those views of society, the "perfect" middle class society or the one consisting of drugs and vice. Perhaps it's just a handful of people's view of things and the only way you can get the clear image is by looking at it from many perspectives.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, Syn, as I said, I'm not so conservative to think that only "middle class values" (whatever precisely that means) are good values. My point is not to argue that nobody should ever have sex outside of marriage or take drugs. My point is merely that the portrayal of people with traditional values as almost invariably stupid or hypocritical is a real and disturbing, and quite likely deliberate phenomenon.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it depends on the traditional value in question... Like if a woman wants to stay home with her kids instead of working, it's her business. And if people want to save themselves for marriage, that's good, as long as they follow their values and believe them and are not really hypocrits... But then there are some values that are considered traditional that just scare me.... I reckon that is what movies tend to rant about but Hollywood exists only to sell things and not to portray the truth. *points to television as well.*
If people have lived in those sort of families portrayed on American Beauty (or worse, Happiness. I'm telling you, there's no point complaining about American Beauty when Happiness is so much worse, so snarky and sarcastic with pathetic people in it, I hate movies like that. Most of the characters in AB are shallow and stupid, but many of them will change and learn, these folks in Happiness NEVER will and it's not even completely a Hollywood movie, I think it's indie.) then what if they are just writing about what they went through instead of reflecting all of American society? I didn't come from that sort of background, but I didn't come from the ghetto either.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I think it depends on the traditional value in question...
I'm not sure what you mean, or what "it" refers to. Again, my purpose is not to promote traditional values, but to decry a certain kind of bigotry I believe I see reflected in popular culture.
WRT your second paragraph, remember that I haven't actually seen EDIT American Beauty. I'm talking in general, and particularly about Truman Show and Pleasantville (though there are certainly more examples).
[ July 20, 2006, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
American Pie?
Which movies? I think a movie with a so-called perfect family would be extremely boring and as annoying as a family that is all disfuctional. I want something realistic and not dripping with stereotypes. There's a ton of movies with black people for instance in which they are in the ghetto shooting each other with guns every second. It happens, but there's more to black families than guns, gangs and drug dealing... And there's never any Asians or hispanics that are not maids in mainstream Hollywood. The independent movies are even worse sometimes.
But it seems like any family regardless of how together they seem on the outside would have SOMETHING screwed up about them... I can't even understand what is meant by perfection, but it would be interesting to have a movie with a Christian in it who isn't.... scary and is strong in their faith.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
I'm beginning to see a trend in this thread that I hadn't seen or thought of before. Now we're getting somewhere. I think maybe Icarus brought this up. I think that one of the ideas being thrown around is that Mr. Card is not really objecting to the portrayal of drug use and sex, but rather is objecting to the negative portrayal of people who don't use drugs or are in a monogamous relationship.
That, at least, explains why he hates Pleasantville (which I also liked, although not as much as I liked American Beauty). However, I don't think that there are really any characters in American Beauty that can be described as having those traditional values, except perhaps the Colonel. Not even him really. His values would be more accurately described as "homophobic values". So without anybody in the movie to make traditional values look bad, I think that argument is weakened slightly. Although it is still a better explanation than any I had thought of so far.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So without anybody in the movie to make traditional values look bad, I think that argument is weakened slightly. Although it is still a better explanation than any I had thought of so far.
Might part of his complaint be that exact lack of people with traditional values?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hehe. Actually, I have seen American Pie. My brain misfires like that a lot.
I'm not saying there should be perfect families. I specifically said that people can be flawed without being hypocrites. None of us is perfect, but most of my friends are trying to do the right thing and trying to get better. We don't all agree on what that means, of course. Your objection to a call for only perfect families is frankly puzzling--it's as if you're reading my posts but somehow seeing a parody of my argument instead of what I am actually saying. (And I don't mean that quite as snarky as it sounds, but it is kinda puzzling.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked Pleasantville, but noticed that many religious folks disliked it. This is probably because of the way sex was portrayed in it, but I felt that it portrayed it in a good light, and one of the main characters who was rather "slutty" awakened through studying and not through sex, that was interesting. But I can see objecting to the portrayal of people in monogamous relationships in a negative way... But, I want to see things that are realistic and powerful and free of cliches and stereotypes. I just wish I understood completely what is meant by Traditional Values. I do believe in hard work, self control and honour. I just find it hard to believe that at any time in history in any society there were pockets of perfection where large amounts of people practiced these values. Even Victorian society had its dark underground, the fifties were disturbingly racist (Kids tormented for wanting to go to a good school, anyone?) Harping on perfection and traditional values to me is as bad as portraying everything as negative and corroded. It's like Leave it to Beaver vs. some modern negative disfuctional family comedy. Both are just as unrealistic and are harmful and will not help people face their problems constructively.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Is it implausible that there could be such a thing as bigotry against "traditional values"?
I don't think so.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm not saying to harp on anything; I'm saying to stop portraying a bigoted view of a group of people. Again you point out that nobody is perfect. I'm sure that this is a profound revelation, but I am also increasingly convinced that you are not reading my posts beyond looking for a handle to attach your disagreement on. I don't sense dialogue going on here; I'm wasting my time. *shrug*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Hehe. Actually, I have seen American Pie. My brain misfires like that a lot.
I'm not saying there should be perfect families. I specifically said that people can be flawed without being hypocrites. None of us is perfect, but most of my friends are trying to do the right thing and trying to get better. We don't all agree on what that means, of course. Your objection to a call for only perfect families is frankly puzzling--it's as if you're reading my posts but somehow seeing a parody of my argument instead of what I am actually saying. (And I don't mean that quite as snarky as it sounds, but it is kinda puzzling.)
Sorry, it's just something that I think about a lot, families, the way they are portrayed, so perhaps it is unrelated to what you are talking about and barely related to the topic... It's something I constantly think about since I want to write stories, how to write something without stereotypes, beign realistic and staying true to the story becaus esometimes things really are like that...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't sense dialogue going on here; I'm wasting my time. *shrug*
Sorry about that, it's just something that I have been toying with for a long time and what you are saying makes me think about it... You are very moderate and I am being a bit extreme, but this topic reminds me of things about Hollywood vs. conservative or tradional values that bother me a lot.. again, sorry about that....
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Maybe we cross-posted; sorry for being harsh. Just to be clear, I personally don't object to showing nontraditional stuff or focusing on it. I do object to creating a false worldview (either everyone does this, or everyone is a liar).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I object to that too... It's one reason why I hate most family sitcoms... But it seems almost unavoidable because that stuff seems to really sell.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* It's one reason I hardly watch TV anymore. Firefly was an awesome example, however, of a diverse group of people trying to do right as they individually saw it. (Of course, that's hardly a good example, since it's gone. But there's something that I thought treated its viewers with respect.)
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Sorry I don't always get my points across coherently.
I do agree that there is a negative portrayal of traditional values in most hollywood films. The movies that DO have traditional values are often scoffed at by a a liberal society that wants "edgy". I also understand (even though I am young) that traditional values have deteriorated in society over each generation. When I was a kid, we ALWAYS had dinner as a family every night. Now it's a rarity on holidays. I agree with all of these points.
What frustrated me was all of the OSC quotes above in Dag's post (thanks Dag!). OSC says AB shows a "nightmare vision of middle class" that he's never actually seen. I was just arguing that I've seen it--more often than OSC's "decent" suburbia. Other people were saying it was "totally unrealistic and the characters were nothing like anyone I've ever met". Well...I'm just making the point that I've met them--and that they WERE realistic. That's what families are like when they fall apart.
OSC speaks of the movie with such derision and disgust--but I have the feeling he's never dealt with divorce, drugs, and extramarital sex. The movie wasn't trying to make those evils "okay", it was portraying a family IN NEED of traditional values--at least that's the way I saw it. Whether or not Hollywood has imposed it's views on American society (and changed it for the worse) over the years...well maybe it has. However, I remember divorce, drugs, and extramarital sex way before hollywood started portraying them as "okay", so I don't really think it's a solid argument.
As for American Beauty, I've always found the movie inspirational and thought-provoking. It reminds me to calm down and stop worrying about the little things. I can see why it wouldn't resonate with Card--I doubt he's ever had to live in the AB world.
But it does exist--and not just in hollywood.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sooner or later I'll just have to watch the thing and judge for myself. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's certainly possible for some groups to portray certain values in a negative light because, finding those values absent in their own lives, they feel the need to slant their view of the world so that the absence of those values is a positive, or at least non-negative, thing.
I am not convinced that that is what is occurring in American Beauty, or Hollywood as a whole.
Slight digression: did anyone else read Card's review of "Over the Hedge" and say to themselves- "is any other critic saying these things?" I mean, it's an CG Disney movie... Surely we can watch such a thing without considering whether a character is representative of all members of every class, race, gender, etc. they belong to?...
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I do agree that there is a negative portrayal of traditional values in most hollywood films. The movies that DO have traditional values are often scoffed at by a a liberal society that wants "edgy".
What most clearly indicated this to me was the critics reviews after my wife and I saw Just Like Heaven. I thought it was an enjoyable, feel-good flick.
However, it was hammered for being anti-feminist because the main character realized that letting her life be swallowed up by her career led to a lack of family and personal relationships. It was 'pandering to the conservative base' because of the idea of a soul and the whole Terry Schiavo thing that went on.
I think it's just as valid for OSC to have such distaste for a movie that goes against his values as it is for other critics to dislike that movie because they see it as running contrary to their values.
This sort of thing goes on all the time, I think the only reason OSC sticks out is because he's often contrary to the mainstream view of what film and literature should be: edgy or avant-garde.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: ... it was hammered for being anti-feminist because the main character realized that letting her life be swallowed up by her career led to a lack of family and personal relationships. It was 'pandering to the conservative base' ...
And yet how many movies show the father recognizing that he's been spending too much energy/time on work and not enough on his family? Those movies are wonderful, encouraging responsible fatherhood and keeping families intact and recognizing what's most important. But if a mother feels she's putting too much into work and not enough into her family, it's old-fashioned and sexist. Hmm.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Slight digression: did anyone else read Card's review of "Over the Hedge" and say to themselves- "is any other critic saying these things?" I mean, it's an CG Disney movie... Surely we can watch such a thing without considering whether a character is representative of all members of every class, race, gender, etc. they belong to?...
Actually, I totally saw Over the Hedge as a not-at-all subtle example of just this sort of attitude. I was surprised when OSC didn't, but he made good points--the fact that we only really saw one person like that nutty association nazi lady, for instance.
Posted by Surveyor 2 (Member # 347) on :
I am glad that you've started this discussion, GForce, because your questions reflected some of the questions that I asked myself - and that made me contribute to another theraed sone time ago. And Lunchywiggin expresses my views much better than I would be able here. Yes, I am one of those who were deeply moved by AB (though I was originaly suspicious to it as a Oscar winner) and I consider it one of the best movies ever. I see it from far away, but I will always prefer to watch the films showing disturbing things, showing people in doubts, showing the aspects of human condition that are not always nice to see, than all those happy, suger-candy things with hypocrisy inside. Unfortunately, with Bush's US getting more conservative, there seems to be more and more of the latter ones.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Surveyor 2: I will always prefer to watch the films showing disturbing things, showing people in doubts, showing the aspects of human condition that are not always nice to see, than all those happy, suger-candy things with hypocrisy inside.
This sentence makes it clear that you have not understood the other side of this debate.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Okay, I'm going to jump in and pick up this debate. Hi everyone.
quote:Launchywiggin, I'm not sure what your point is. That infidelity and drug-use occur in the middle class? Nobody's really denying that. What I'm commenting on, and what I believe OSC is commenting on as well, is the attitude toward these occurences. One is not a hypocrite because one gets divorced. One is not a hypocrite even if one uses drugs or has some other addiction. People fall, and there is nobility in the effort to try to get back up. And tragedy in the failure to do so.
Those things might not specifically mean that the person involved is automatically a hypocrite. But I'm sure you allow room for the reality that some of them *are* hypocrites. Is it possible to view a film like American Beauty as being about specific people who are hypocrites, rather than representing society as a whole? "These people are hypocrites." Or: "People who behave like this are hypocrites." Rather than: "Everyone in Middle Class America is a hypocrite."
quote:The attitude in many recent movies and shows about suburban life seems to be that nobody is what they seem. Everyone is a liar, and those who object to these social ills are hypocrites and closed-minded. Those who succumb to temptation have not failed in any way; they merely have been caught doing what everyone else is doing in secret. And only when people embrace their faults can they be truly honest and, if not upright, then at least less hypocritical.
If we're talking about American Beauty, I disagree with the way you're interpreting the film. The movie does not portray "everyone" that way.
quote:In twenty-one years, I'm sure you've seen a lot. But I don't believe you can compare and contrast the attitudes of different generations at the same age and stage in development to each other. People born when you were a teenager are not yet teenagers. You have seen one generation--your own. When I made my comment about living more than one generation, which perhaps is what you are taking objection to with your comment on your twenty-one years, I was not condescending--particularly given that I did not know your age, nor did I refer to you. I was merely reporting my observations of how attitudes toward fidelity, drug use, and sex have changed between the time when I was a teenager and now, with the teenagers that I teach. I'm fairly confident that someone a generation older than I am would note a similar difference between the attitudes of his or her generation and my own, and a greater difference from the current one.
That is, honestly, a laughable argument. "In my day things were different." The idea that in your day kids weren't up to the same crap they're up to today -- well, it's demonstrably false. Easily disprovable. I usually dismiss the people who make such arguments as being incapable of having a realistic discussion pretty much about anything that might fall within the broad range of sociological/cultural topics. I won't do so in your case.
quote:(And I'm not some überconservative decrying all social change. I believe that a lot of our attititudes have changed for the better, which is why I said OSC and I probably disagree on a lot of details. But my point here is simply that I agree with his assertion that there is in current popular culture a conscious portrayal of suburban middle class Americans as hypocrites, and of vice as commonplace and acceptable. Like OSC, I don't believe this is an accurate portrayal. And like OSC, I believe that, since we're talking about attitudes, saying something is true often enough has the potential to bring it about.)
Here's the problem that I have with that. The word "conscious." OSC believes, and I surmise from your word choice that you agree with him -- (correct me if I'm wrong) that Middle America is actually under attack from Hollywood. That there is an agenda to portray Middle America as evil hypocrites who must be destroyed. I think this is wrong. For every movie that takes the approach, at a basic level, that there is hypocrisy and ugliness in middle class life, there is another that does not. By only pointing out the films that *do*, and then saying Hollywood has an agenda, you are presenting one side of an argument and pretending that it is all there is. YOu react to the movies that fit in with your argument and ignore the rest. This is not solid ground.
Also, Hollywood (by this we mean the filmmaking industry: writers, directors, actors, executives, etc) is totally incapable of uniting with a common purpose. Hollywood is not some single-minded collective; it is a disparate group of very differently-minded people who have had some individual success. OSC doesn't imagine, I hope, that Hollywood actors, or writers, sit around making plans to destroy America's middle class values with their films. I think the reality is, these are people who grew up fascinated with their craft, and developed their skills, and made a name for themselves in the film industry. They come from all over the country, big cities, small towns -- raised with different values, many of them incredibly middle class -- and there is no agenda. Writers always write what they know. If some of them write movies about hypocrisy, sex, or drug use in the suburbs or small towns, it is because they probably experienced those things. These are not people who grew up in castles with servants and tutors who taught them to hate America. These are people like you and me. Families, moms, dads, little league baseball, getting laid on prom night -- all the traditional stuff.
quote:Is it implausible that there could be such a thing as bigotry against "traditional values"?
Reaction A) It would be a devious twist on the current discussion to say that people who portray people with "traditional values" as bigots are themselves, bigots. Would you have this stance automatically invalidate any accusation of bigotry? Or only accusations of bigotry against those with "traditional values"?
Reaction B) Interesting question. Of course there are people who have a pre-conditioned negative reaction to "traditional values". And I'm quite certain that some of those people are Hollywood writers. But SOME people with "tradional values" ARE bigots. I'm sure you would agree.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Is it possible to view a film like American Beauty as being about specific people who are hypocrites, rather than representing society as a whole? "These people are hypocrites." Or: "People who behave like this are hypocrites." Rather than: "Everyone in Middle Class America is a hypocrite."
quote:If we're talking about American Beauty, I disagree with the way you're interpreting the film. The movie does not portray "everyone" that way.
I'm not talking about American Beauty, because I have not seen it. I am saying that I think OSC has a point that "Hollywood" perpetuates an attitude that people who proclaim traditional values are, more often than not, hypocrites.
quote:That is, honestly, a laughable argument. "In my day things were different." The idea that in your day kids weren't up to the same crap they're up to today -- well, it's demonstrably false. Easily disprovable.
Then disprove it, because I stand by that statement. I am not saying that "things" in general are worse. I made a much more specific claim than you may be giving me credit for. But attitudes toward sex, for instance, were clearly different when I was a teenager than they are today. Laughing at my claim does not refute it.
quote:Here's the problem that I have with that. The word "conscious." OSC believes, and I surmise from your word choice that you agree with him -- (correct me if I'm wrong) that Middle America is actually under attack from Hollywood. That there is an agenda to portray Middle America as evil hypocrites who must be destroyed.
You may be right; it may not be conscious. But it is widespread, I think. It may be because it makes for better storytelling, because it's more interesting to have someone considered traditionally moral to be dishonest. Or perhaps it's that many artistic types have traditionally felt badly treated by more mundane people, and so they are lashing out at those who tormented them when they were young. I don't know.
quote:Reaction A) It would be a devious twist on the current discussion to say that people who portray people with "traditional values" as bigots are themselves, bigots. Would you have this stance automatically invalidate any accusation of bigotry? Or only accusations of bigotry against those with "traditional values"?
No to both questions. I'm not trying to cast this as a black and white question. As I noted, I don't agree with all of OSC's values. I simply think he has a point. It never occurred to me, growing up, that there was any reason at all to disdain Middle American values, but in the last ten or fifteen years, I have seen movie after movie that drives home the fact that there is.
Isn't the evil preacher all but an archgetype, now? So much so, in fact, that Firefly is groubdbreaking and edgy, just for having a good preacher.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I'm not talking about American Beauty, because I have not seen it. I am saying that I think OSC has a point that "Hollywood" perpetuates an attitude that people who proclaim traditional values are, more often than not, hypocrites.
Does Hollywood perpetuate that attitude more often than not? In other words,is this attitude in the majority of films depicting people with traditional values?
quote:Then disprove it, because I stand by that statement. I am not saying that "things" in general are worse. I made a much more specific claim than you may be giving me credit for. But attitudes toward sex, for instance, were clearly different when I was a teenager than they are today. Laughing at my claim does not refute it.
May I ask *how* specifically you think the attitude toward sex has changed? And drugs? So that I may either attempt to disprove it or say "Oh, okay, you're right"?
quote:No to both questions. I'm not trying to cast this as a black and white question. As I noted, I don't agree with all of OSC's values. I simply think he has a point. It never occurred to me, growing up, that there was any reason at all to disdain Middle American values, but in the last ten or fifteen years, I have seen movie after movie that drives home the fact that there is.
Have you also seen movies that do not drive home the fact that there is reason to disdain Middle American values? If so, which do you think is the more prevalent attitude?
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Really, this is how I feel about the message: they portray the characters as acting in unhealthy, promiscuous ways, using drugs, and feeling bad about how they look, right? But then, their redemption or uplifting ending isn't a repair from that in any way--it's topped by the final act of a fifteen year old girl sleeping with a married man twenty-five years her senior in order to feel better about herself. Come on.
Plus, the symbolism was corny in the extreme. It's fun to watch this with a bunch of lit kids, point the metaphors out, and laugh.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:Then disprove it, because I stand by that statement. I am not saying that "things" in general are worse. I made a much more specific claim than you may be giving me credit for. But attitudes toward sex, for instance, were clearly different when I was a teenager than they are today. Laughing at my claim does not refute it.
May I ask *how* specifically you think the attitude toward sex has changed? And drugs? So that I may either attempt to disprove it or say "Oh, okay, you're right"?
When I was a high school student, the vast majority of high school students were virgins. This was considered normal. If a teenaged girl was known to sleep around, this was considered shocking. Teenaged boys generally wanted to have sex, or at least generally claimed that they did, but the opportunity to actually do so was rare. Today, many more young teenagers are sexually active. Those who choose not to be may often have their choice respected, but they are nevertheless considered to not be the norm. Those who are sexually active talk about it frankly, with no serious thought that teenage promiscuity is a bad thing. I have seen students, in a speech to a class, talk about how teaching abstinence is a poor choice because most kids have sex, and its unrealistic to expect otherwise. (For the record, I agree that the time for abstinence-only sex-ed has passed, but my point is the underlying assumption that it is unreasonable to think that the vast majority of teenagers are not having sex.) I have many female students whose birth control patches are prominently displayed in the band of skin between their low rise jeans and their bare midriff shirt. Clearly, then, lose girls are no longer looked down upon.
Now please don't turn my post into something I did not say in order to refute it. I'm not saying that teenagers didn't used to have sex; what I'm pointing out is the attitude toward it, the attitude toward the commonness of it, and the fact that such attitudes are a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think its safe to say that a far lower percentage of the population makes it to the age of eighteen without ever having had sex than was the case when I was a teenager. And while I do not believe that the media control our actions, I think it is willfully blind to suppose that they don't influence them.
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:No to both questions. I'm not trying to cast this as a black and white question. As I noted, I don't agree with all of OSC's values. I simply think he has a point. It never occurred to me, growing up, that there was any reason at all to disdain Middle American values, but in the last ten or fifteen years, I have seen movie after movie that drives home the fact that there is.
Have you also seen movies that do not drive home the fact that there is reason to disdain Middle American values? If so, which do you think is the more prevalent attitude?
I think the former is the more prevalent attitude--though it is certainly changing since Bush's reelection, as "Hollywood" attempts to tap that conservative Christian market. I think we see far more evil ministers than good ones, in the movies. I think we see far more sexually-active teenagers than chaste ones. And I'm not sure I've seen a character in a movie express the attitude that s/he would like to move out to the suburbs, in order to raise his or her kids in a lower crime environment or in a less congested area, without one of two things happening: either this happens at the beginning of the movie and the rest of the movie is spent showing what a hell that life turns out to be, or the character expressing that sentiment is an idiot, played for comic effect.
I think "Middle American" values is a nebulous term, unless you define what it's in opposition to. I don't think "Hollywood" is promoting a value of wholesale murder for instance, even though clearly such a value would be in opposition to "Middle American" values. Hollywood's not (generally) openly promoting sex between adults and children, notwithstanding this movie and the extreme sexualizing of children characters in movies and TV. So I suppose we could point to a thousand areas where the values promoted in our movies and TV align with "traditional" values. But I think there are at least a few where they are very much out of step, and where tradition values, then are treated with disdain.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Where is the list of movies that portray "middle America" without irony in the last 10 or 20 years? I mean, you can have something like "Back to the Future" where middle America is the setting for other events. The foundation of normalcy is pretty important to what goes on in that movie, I think. "The Straight Story" comes to mind, though it wasn't middle class America.
Since part of the issue is the stature this movie was given, I think it would be fair to narrow our sample to movies that won an award of some kind.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
A Beautiful Mind
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Jerry Maguire
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Where is the list of movies that portray "middle America" without irony in the last 10 or 20 years?
The list is huge. At least as large as the list of movies that *do* portray middle America with irony. The problem I see is that you've applied a false modifier: They have to have won an award to fit your criteria. Which is not what we've been talking about.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
A History of Violence
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: A Beautiful Mind
Isn't that a story about an academic who never has children? I'm not sure how much it qualifies as portraying middle America.
[ August 02, 2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
No, he definitely has a kid. What it's about at its core is his disease (schizophrenia) and how his wife helps him get through it. No pre-marital sex, no extra-marital sex, no drug use, just a married couple with problems.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Actually, there might have been a little drug use. It's been a couple of years since I've seen it. I don't remember exactly, but if there was, it wasn't featured prominantly. And too be honest, there might have been some pre-marital sex too. But it has traditional values, believe me.
[ August 02, 2006, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: GForce ]
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Also, I'm not sure how "traditional values" got equated with "middle america". There's plenty of people in all regions of the country with traditional values. A movie doesn't have to be set in kansas to display them.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I'm still confused, personally, with some people's reactions/interpretations of AB...
For example, the adult/teen sex aspect of it keeps being brought up here as if the movie were condoning it. I always interpreted this aspect of the movie as going along with the general flow of the whole thing: these people's lives start out fairly miserable and only get worse because of the bad decisions that are made... Is anything better because of this aspect of his fantasies? While perhaps there weren't enough negative reprocussions to an arguably heinous thing I can't see how anyone could say the movie really encourages/condones it.
Additionally, people keep talking about how the movie decries traditional values, but I really don't think this is the case (by-and-large). Are any of the characters' lives made better by sexual promiscuity, excessive drug use, infidelity, pedophiliac fantasies, hate mongering? I didn't see any improvement because of these things (which are the main complaints against traditional values I've seen with regards to this film).
It's true that the families at the start aren't happy, and I can think of two things that one could take issue with. 1) This initial state of unhappiness. At worst I feel this can be brushed off with some combination of "suspension of disbelief" and an acceptance that even if it isn't the norm some families can be depressed/demoralized by that they've tried to make of suburban life. 2) The movie does condone at least some level of drug use. It doesn't really bother me personally because it seems a fairly small and inconsequential level of drug use, but it someone wanted I could see this as an area of valid critique.
All-in-all I've always seen this movie as 95% sad and 5% redeeming, so when people try claiming that it supports all these things that go against traditional values my only response can be: yes it portrays all those things that go against our values, but it also portrays the characters lives as being more and more miserable because of those things.
Maybe I need to watch the movie again and see if I was just seeing it through heavily rose-colored glasses.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I don't think Card is saying the movie condones those values. Quite the opposite. He feels the movie WANTS to show that these are bad people who do bad things and have bad lives.
By doing so, Hollywood thinks its "exposing" all of this debauchery and hypocrisy in middle class America. In reality, their perception says more about how screwed-up they are. They think that because they are like this, everyone is like this.
And, to the degree that regular people accept that, they start seeing the world through those glasses. They start looking for all the things in their lives that support the "American Beauty" view of the middle class, and every one of the things they see is "evidence" that this is the true version.
And all of those people who don't fit the profile? Those are the hypocrites, the ones pretending to be okay, while behind closed doors they're being abused by thier spouse or looking at kiddie porn or having nervous breakdowns and getting addicted to medications, so they're easy to dismiss, ho-hum.
Same type of thing that highlighted Card's (very accurate) take on The Grinch. While the original book was about how a mean man learned love from a loving community, the revised version made the community anything but loving and made them the ones who had to learn to love the Grinch, who was just misunderstood.
That's the type of disdain for regular Americans I think Card's talking about, the type of hypocrisy the Hollywood community is guilty of, loudly proclaiming the color of all the kettles they find.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
woo! I didn't kill the thread completely =p
I guess maybe it's just my way of viewing/interpreting these movies...
I see there being two distinct possibilities that nonetheless don't change my reaction to things one iota. 1)It may be that Hollywood is in fact trying to say all those things and expose the vile underbelly of all middle-class Americans etc etc. 2)It may be that Hollywood is just portraying an interesting example of one potential small subset of America that would be pretty messed up and miserable because of all the character's failings.
i tend to think 2 is closer to the truth, but either way it doesn't change my reaction to the movies. I think they're interesting and may or may not be enjoyable but they are just that, movies that portray some interesting things. If 1 is their intent then I just ignore them as wackjobs and assume the rest of the country will more or less do the same (though I guess that is putting too much faith in some portion of the population). The thing is that it is so blaringly obvious that Hollywood in general is so tainted and warped that if you take anything coming out of there too seriously I have to question your sanity.
It's kinda like if a bunch of convicts were to criticise what is considered legal and not... one one side they have a more intimite experience with that line of legality, but on the other side they are obviously in the minority on the subject and no one in their right mind is going to consider them an authoritative body on the matter. If you tried seriously considering their points then my only response would be, "dude, they're convicts..." <SPOILER ALERT> I will retell one story that does really bother me about people's reactions to the movie. A main reason why one of my sisters hates the movie is that at the end when the homophobe father shoots himself the rest of the theater apparently burst into applause... to which my only response was that she was seeing the movie with a crowd of really sick people...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm actually watching the movie again right now. The thing is, it's not the whole suburban thing that gets me, it's more y ou have a movie where most of the people are a bit... pathetic because they have this good life and they are not even aware of it. Like Jane with the father and mother that provide for her, but she still doesn't appreciate it or the way her parents cannot appreciate themselves, movies like that are fascinating in a way, much like this book I read called, "What was she Thinking?" which everyone in the book club hated, but I found interested because despite the fact that I hated every character except for the boy with down syndrome it was an interesting read. The way these people were entirely different from me and had different values and didn't really get things, understand life. The one character in the movie that really understands about things smokes pot all the time and yet he understands the underlying beauty of life. Most of the movie is satirical anyway. Things like "Free napkins." crack me up. I'm more annoyed at how sitcoms just trivialize life... It's not related, but I am watching a bit of a show I just hate.
I got bothered when I watched the movie with some college students for free and none of them freaked out at hairy bear-pawed lester paying at that girl but freaked out when that guy kissed him, which is just so...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "American Beauty" is on many levels a critique of the perceived "hollowness" of Middle America. For a variety of reasons, this irks OSC.
I've heard English lit teachers critique it for misusing the concept of "beauty," in place of agreeableness, or elation or sexuality. To say nothing of the acting or the direction, it was confused when it came to what motivated the movie.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)