![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
May. 1st, 2004
May. 1st, 2004 10:21 pm
Rambling Review
I finally got around to seeing Mona Lisa Smile. While there were parts of it that kind of made me roll my eyes (and I still can't stand Julia Roberts) it was actually better than I'd expected it would be. Kirsten Dunst was very good, in fact, and I now have a raging crush on Maggie Gyllenhaal. It even brought a bit of a tear at the end.
The "message" as it were is pretty blatantly obvious, but there were subtleties to it I didn't expect. There were a few of those, however, that disturbed me. The concept of "the fat girl" pining away for love, for instance, really bothered me. 1. She wasn't the least bit fat. If they wanted to emphasize that point, they should've gotten an actress with at least another 20-30 lbs. 2. It assumed that because she was "fat" that her goals in life should necessarily be different than the goals of the other girls. The idea of her pining away for love was given a pass, when the same thing, had it been done by a thinner character, certainly wouldn't have been. I guess the theory is that career is all the fat girls have to look forward to, because they'll never get a man, so let's give her her real dream. Bleh.
The other thing that bothered me was the little speech with Julia Stiles' character where she insisted that being married and having babies was what she really wanted, and the choice she was really making, and, even in the face of someone telling her that yes, she could do both family and career, she said she'd rather be home with her family. Now, I can sort of understand why they put that in there. There's a fairly big movement these days of "stay at home by choice," and I think they were trying to get across the message that women should all be able to exercise their own choices, whatever those choices may be, but I think that's actually a dangerously glib message. I wish there had been some element in that storyline of real concern for her future, even though it was clear she and her husband really were in love (unlike Kirsten Dunst's character's screwed up marriage.)
It also really seemed like the men in the story were given very short shrift. The female characters, of course, were the protagonists, but I don't think that's an excuse for making nearly all the male characters broad stereotypes, especially when the movie was more than long enough to have changed that. One of the things I wish had been said about the situation above, for instance, was something to the effect of "Well, what about your husband? Aren't you concerned that he won't know his family, either?" I guess that concept may have been considered anachronistic though, maybe.
( Yes, you can have a job and a family. If you have the right job. )
The "message" as it were is pretty blatantly obvious, but there were subtleties to it I didn't expect. There were a few of those, however, that disturbed me. The concept of "the fat girl" pining away for love, for instance, really bothered me. 1. She wasn't the least bit fat. If they wanted to emphasize that point, they should've gotten an actress with at least another 20-30 lbs. 2. It assumed that because she was "fat" that her goals in life should necessarily be different than the goals of the other girls. The idea of her pining away for love was given a pass, when the same thing, had it been done by a thinner character, certainly wouldn't have been. I guess the theory is that career is all the fat girls have to look forward to, because they'll never get a man, so let's give her her real dream. Bleh.
The other thing that bothered me was the little speech with Julia Stiles' character where she insisted that being married and having babies was what she really wanted, and the choice she was really making, and, even in the face of someone telling her that yes, she could do both family and career, she said she'd rather be home with her family. Now, I can sort of understand why they put that in there. There's a fairly big movement these days of "stay at home by choice," and I think they were trying to get across the message that women should all be able to exercise their own choices, whatever those choices may be, but I think that's actually a dangerously glib message. I wish there had been some element in that storyline of real concern for her future, even though it was clear she and her husband really were in love (unlike Kirsten Dunst's character's screwed up marriage.)
It also really seemed like the men in the story were given very short shrift. The female characters, of course, were the protagonists, but I don't think that's an excuse for making nearly all the male characters broad stereotypes, especially when the movie was more than long enough to have changed that. One of the things I wish had been said about the situation above, for instance, was something to the effect of "Well, what about your husband? Aren't you concerned that he won't know his family, either?" I guess that concept may have been considered anachronistic though, maybe.
( Yes, you can have a job and a family. If you have the right job. )
I hate the local news channels. I was watching their coverage of the protest this afternoon, and the tinge of bias it had really bothered me. One report said only a "few hundred" protesters showed up, to the 25,000 in the stadium (the protester numbers actually peaked at around 2500, which isn't bad considering that the protest was fairly low-profile.) They also failed to mention that the people in the stadium had been bussed in from all over the state, whereas most of the protesters were locals. They interviewed three of the fundies to every one of the protesters, and chose misleading quotes like "fighting for marriage" etc. which is completely not what those gits are doing.
I'm waiting to see what the Stranger's coverage of it is like. I suspect that will be a bit different than KING, KOMO or (especially) KIRO.
I'm waiting to see what the Stranger's coverage of it is like. I suspect that will be a bit different than KING, KOMO or (especially) KIRO.