Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anti-Retromania

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anti-Retromania

    Bored of Education wrote: Personally, I am not 'looking' specifically for Capra films with stronger roles. IAWL was a fantastic film to watch and the very strong feminist women I was with thought so as well. It was of its time and any film that was being investigated by the FBI for suspected Communist propaganda due to its criticism of bankers possibly had enough issues to address perhaps for one film. Also, as I say, the film ends with Mary solving the problem after George loses it. As far as I an see, it would have been a difficult film to make without Mary being the character that she was.

    Blablabla
    FFS, how many times.

    The problem isn't a "failure to address" male/female inequalities, it's that they have gone out of their way to equate lifelong spinsterhood with a terribly, sad, lonely existence, in the scene where they show Mary's life without George.

    She's only the "stronger" character in the sense of putting up with his shit and making it all better like a comforting mummy, rather than booting him out. It's sexist to make women forever the fixers, the sensible ones, whilst men are the creative dreamers and philosophers.

    ..and once again, a bit of revisionism in your posts, with the "strong feminist women" making a first appearance.

    Comment


      Anti-Retromania

      MsD wrote:
      Originally posted by Bored of Education
      Personally, I am not 'looking' specifically for Capra films with stronger roles. IAWL was a fantastic film to watch and the very strong feminist women I was with thought so as well. It was of its time and any film that was being investigated by the FBI for suspected Communist propaganda due to its criticism of bankers possibly had enough issues to address perhaps for one film. Also, as I say, the film ends with Mary solving the problem after George loses it. As far as I an see, it would have been a difficult film to make without Mary being the character that she was.

      Blablabla
      FFS, how many times.

      The problem isn't a "failure to address" male/female inequalities, it's that they have gone out of their way to equate lifelong spinsterhood with a terribly, sad, lonely existence, in the scene where they show Mary's life without George.
      It's saying that Mary never married and worked in the library, not all women would end up like that if they weren't married (indeed, the Clarissa Saunders character, form what has been said, seems to indicate that he knows that) . OK, it's called he an 'old maid' which is pretty offensive now but fairly tame by the mores of the time. I think that there is a difference between him saying that Mary ended up like that and all women would end up like that. Violet, for instance, goes to make her own life in New York. Would you have preferred if MAry had got married to Sam Wainwright as planned. It's an interesting alternative but I am not sure it's much more feminist.

      She's only the "stronger" character in the sense of putting up with his shit and making it all better like a comforting mummy, rather than booting him out. It's sexist to make women forever the fixers, the sensible ones, whilst men are the creative dreamers and philosophers.
      It's your opinion but you are uncharitable if not plain wrong. What shit? He breaks down after the sort of failures that many people end up falling apart under after a life of philanthropy. He's hardly Jack Torrance. The film doesn't make women the fixer, it makes Mary the fixer and, as such, the real hero of the piece. In that moment, George realises that he can't do everything on his own. He realises that, finally, he needs the help of others but especially Mary's. Mary is also the dreamer. She dreams of living in that big house with kids. Just because it isn't the dreams of some, doesn't make it a sexist dream.

      ..and once again, a bit of revisionism in your posts, with the "strong feminist women" making a first appearance.
      What, I am inviting my wife and friend who we met at the cinema with her family? It's one thing to have uncharitable readings of "It's a wonderful life' but to construct a scenario where I am going to watch it on Christmas Eve with imaginary family and friends is quite another.

      Comment


        Anti-Retromania

        Well, after the "confusion" over whether you had actually watched the Haye-Chisora fight and the downgrading of "fights" into a single "slap", it wouldn't be the first time you'd revised things to bolster your argument.

        There are many less charitable assessments of the film online, many by academics, but I actually like this one.

        http://www.cafemom.com/group/115189/forums/read/19457325/My_contribution_to_the_war_on_christmas_It_s_a_Won derful_Life_is_Wicked_Sexist_PIOG

        She's right, George IS an asshole to his wife.

        Comment


          Anti-Retromania

          MsD wrote: Well, after the "confusion" over whether you had actually watched the Haye-Chisora fight and the downgrading of "fights" into a single "slap", it wouldn't be the first time you'd revised things to bolster your argument.
          Really, what have your readings of this got to do with "It's a Wonderful Life" (there was no confusion) ? You forgot that, apparently, I made up my proud boast of having watched "I'm a Celebrity" as well. Do I take it that you deign to believe I have seen "IAWL" for the purposes of this thread?

          There are many less charitable assessments of the film online, many by academics, but I actually like this one.

          http://www.cafemom.com/group/115189/forums/read/19457325/My_contribution_to_the_war_on_christmas_It_s_a_Won derful_Life_is_Wicked_Sexist_PIOG

          She's right, George IS an asshole to his wife.
          I wouldn't disagree with that but she is wrong that he is like it throughout the movie. It is only really on what is fairly obviously the worst day of his life that he really is an arsehole. Indeed, that behaviour is kind of the point of the film in a way. IT shows that he has lost the ability to solve things on his own and needs the other people, especially his wife. The rest of the time, he only shows minor frustration with things like the state of the house which, you know, everyone does. In thinking about it, she is spot on about the robe scene and, actually, that is the one where I felt it jarred and wouldn't have been filmed now (although, now I think about it, I think there was an exact same scene in "Desperate Housewives".)

          You know, we can look at all sorts of old films and point out where women, blacks, gays etc are being painted in manners that conflict with our present values and mores but, especially when the movie stands for something of reasonable worth, like the message in "IAWL", it is uncharitable to put it mildly. Ensuring that present films, books, music, etc isn't still writing to those old values is much more worthwhile. As the old saying goes, "It's very easy to sneer". I expect that many male and female directors have decided to improve upon the message of old films without necessarily denouncing them. Similar with "Tom Sawyer", "To Kill A Mockingbird" etc.

          Comment


            Anti-Retromania

            Actually, that is a good point about reimagining old classics. As been mentioned upthread, Tom and Jerry loses something without the violence (although does it lose anything without the black maid?). I know that the aforementioned Tom Sawyer has been printed without all the racist language (although, interestingly, still including "Injun Joe"). Similar with other pieces of work. However, how far does one go with this. It would be impossible to redraw Mary completely in "IAWL" (even if you wanted to ) but, perhaps, the robe scene could be re-edited. Should the next Star Wars make-over include a CGI covering up of Princess Leia in her gold bikini? Obviously, Jabba the Hut is an bad guy but he is a male and there is no question that, however much she ends up defeating him, her appearance as such is nothing more than titillating really.

            Would it be worth re-editing old films to make them more amenable to modern values and attitudes so that the greater rump of them be acceptable to today's audiences. I am quite surprised how many 'classics' I see from my youth having warnings about violence, for instance. The Magnificent Seven, being a case in point, as it is an 18 certificate.

            Comment


              Anti-Retromania

              Bored of Education wrote:
              Originally posted by MsD
              Well, after the "confusion" over whether you had actually watched the Haye-Chisora fight and the downgrading of "fights" into a single "slap", it wouldn't be the first time you'd revised things to bolster your argument.
              Really, what have your readings of this got to do with "It's a Wonderful Life" (there was no confusion) ? You forgot that, apparently, I made up my proud boast of having watched "I'm a Celebrity" as well. Do I take it that you deign to believe I have seen "IAWL" for the purposes of this thread?
              You were dishonest about your viewing of the fight. Then, you revised your posts about having "physical fights" with your wife to one slap.

              I would be happy to debate the film with AdC and others, but you cannot engage with me without trying to rubbish and discredit my viewpoints - they are "just my opinion" and "not representative"; and because they sometimes don't chime with the opinions of the handful of women who post on here, (or the "strong feminist women" you now say you went to the cinema with), you dismiss them.

              You don't seem to do that to other people's opinions, you don't try to discount, say, AdC's posts because he doesn't agree with the men down the pub or other posters on here.

              Comment


                Anti-Retromania

                I wasn't dishonest about anything in your first paragraph and, anyway, what has it got to do with this thread? Are you seriously suggesting that I am inventing my wife and a friend that I was at the cinema with? I have not tried to discredit or dismiss your viewpoints, I have said that they are as valid as anyone else's. I just said that they are not as absolute as your initial posting on "IAWL". I have also not said they "just my opinion" or "not representative" so it is extremely disingenuous to put those in quotes. There has been no other woman posting on this thread (nor, indeed, references to "men in the pub") since we started discussing "IAWL". I haven't discounted AdC's posts because he started by addressing your posts not mine and, beyond that, has suggested general stuff about the film as opposed to viewing it through a feminist lens. JV is the only other one, I think, that has elaborated on that and that was fleetingly.

                Apart from that, you are spot on. I mean, is this really how it is going to go that you are going to drag your baggage about me that that no-one else is interested in into every single thread? It's just boring for others.

                Comment


                  Anti-Retromania

                  Indeed, it is so boring, let's take it outside.

                  ...and, after that brief interlude, on with Film 2014.

                  Comment


                    Anti-Retromania

                    Suddenly now, you worry about boring people?

                    No need for a new thread, it's all in here.

                    http://www.wsc.co.uk/forum-index/28-world/837999-helen-flanagan-public-enemy-number-one

                    Comment


                      Anti-Retromania

                      Bored of Education wrote: Would it be worth re-editing old films to make them more amenable to modern values and attitudes so that the greater rump of them be acceptable to today's audiences.
                      Certainly; let's start with re-editing 1984 to emphasize that Winston Smith's job was a good & necessary thing. (And perhaps add a new soundtrack.)

                      Should the next Star Wars make-over include a CGI removal of Princess Leia's gold bikini?
                      Fixed.

                      Comment


                        Anti-Retromania

                        alyxandr wrote:
                        Originally posted by Bored of Education
                        Would it be worth re-editing old films to make them more amenable to modern values and attitudes so that the greater rump of them be acceptable to today's audiences.
                        Certainly; let's start with re-editing 1984 to emphasize that Winston Smith's job was a good & necessary thing. (And perhaps add a new soundtrack.)
                        How serious are you about the job? I actually haven't seen 1984 either. Only just read the book last year. Of course, I will spend the whole time dissecting the female characters when I do.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X