From: MKERBEL@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: MTM in Ordinary People
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 09:18:11 EDT

In article <CINEMA-L%92100912002127@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>
Jennifer Porro <BL.JMP@RLG.BITNET> writes:
>
>REPLY TO 10/09/92 08:01 FROM CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET "Discussions on all forms of
>Cinema": MTM in Ordinary People
>
>Hey, I see MK's point about MTM:  her character in ORDINARY PEOPLE was
>cold, unyielding, dominating, and controlling; in fact, she was a
>first class b*t*h.  This was a very strong character -- strong in
>the sense that she had a powerful impact on the people around
>her.
>
>Whether OP is an anti-feminist tract or simply the story of one
>family, I'm undecided.  I do think the Hollywood
>powerbrokers/decisionmakers hate and undervalue women; I'm
>not sure I think Robert Redford does.
>
>There certainly is something to be said for MK's premise -- his posts
>have gotten me to think in a larger sense about two movies (OP and
>KRAMER VS KRAMER) I had originally dismissed as large-scale movies of
>the week.  In today's parlance, are these movies about the triumph of
>"family values" or really about how men can fill women's roles better
>than they can?  For that matter, isn't that what TOOTSIE was really
>about -- that a man impersonating a woman could do a better job at it
>(ie, being a woman) AND teach the women around him a few things to
>boot?
>
>>>MK's response:
>>>I think that your analysis is excellent.  Your example from TOOTSIE is
brilliant.  What struck me about some of these films reflecting changing
attitudes about male-female roles is that no matter how well-meaning they
might have been, their ultimate message (which may have been entirely
unconscious on the filmmakers' parts, and therefore that much more revealing)
is to reinforce traditional attitudes.  That the individuals involved
(Redford, Robert Benton, Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Sydney
Pollack, Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore) are certified Hollywood liberals
doesn't take away from the point -- it makes it more fascinating.
 
Some others have ridiculed my points,implying that I had said that films should
be P.C. (whatever that means -- I don't think anyone can define it) to be
considered good or even great.  I NEVER said this.  I just thought it might be
interesting to look at some respected films OF THE 1970S AND 1980S in a
slightly different way.  And again, I wouldn't dream of applying these same
points to earlier films.  Also, and this might be inconsistent, but, then, ok,
I contradict myself: my own favorite directors of the 1970s and 1980s are
Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen.  Both of them present male characters who are
sexist, even brutal, towards women, and some have seen the films as critical
of those male characters.  But at the same time, both directors do often
encourage us to go along with, even take delight in, their male characters'
attitudes.  But Scorsese and Allen make great films.  They have continually
broken new ground in visual style, sound (including music), narrative
structure and content.  Whether or not they are P.C. is beside the point, at
least to me personally.
 
P.S. Last week Hilary Clinton spoke to a huge crowd on the New Haven Green.
New Haven's mayor introduced her as follows: "We welcome Hilary Clinton back
to New Haven, where she attended Yale Law School.  We love Hilary.  And we
LOVE Hilary's cookies!"  Cheers, applause, and great approval from the crowd,
about half of whom were Yale students.