I can't believe 500 Days of Summer is being criticized because it aligns with the norm. If anything it refuses to depict love in the normal ways our media and society does.
The only sweeping generalizations it makes is that "the one" you are meant to be isn't out there (or is he/she/it).
And no one movie can speak to all people equally. A lot of films that mean things personally to one person means absolutely nothing to another.
and as i wrote in my initial post, i applauded the film for Summer's initial take Against Love. BUT, i am sorely disappointed that she "came around", which i feel negated her earlier position. i haven't worked it out yet, but it seems that there is some meaningful characterization going on with Summer being the initial anti-love position, seeing the light, then buying into Love, with Hansen flopping to jaded (then getting cured with Autumn).
that being the case, this anti-love position isn't really maintained by the film, so that, along with the beginning-to-end boy+girl relationship means that the film in fact does not "refuse to depict love in normal ways our media and society does". which brings up the passing critique of media representations of love with Hansen's greeting card tirade - it is an empty gesture in that the film is exactly what he here critiques, especially as it wraps up with two happy endings.
as far as your disbelief goes, i'd return you to
Colleen's excellent post of how seemingly inoffensive or benign to one person are understood differently by others.
I'd like to clarify that I was responding to skjerva's review, not faceboys comment. And the reason I used the word "attack" is because I feel skjerva uses this sort of critique on a very constant basis as a way to bring down a film. Again, see the Wall-E debate.
odd that you'd characterize what i wrote as an attack. and, i wasn't trying to "bring the film down" but sharing my wondering of how the film would settle with me considering my perception that the film is heteronormative, i think my writings on the film have been rather positive, otherwise. it seems to me that when folks don't like what i write, my ideas are distorted and dismissed with inaccurate portrayals, i think i have done a decent job of stating where the critique i have comes from. it is just the case that most folks on the boards don't seem to care about the social meanings that films are making, and that, of course, is fine, but it makes for my posts more easily getting swept aside as fringe nonsense
That said, I totally understand how something like this might rub somebody Ina different social group the wrong way. as a Jew I've often cringed at not only the portrayal of Jews in many films, but I've been generally annoyed by films and media reinforcing ideas of how Jews behave. But on the flip side, I will never critique a Christmas movie for not presenting the viewpoints of Jews or any other religious group. That is ultimately my problem with skjerva's complaints. Instead of taking a film on the level that it presents itself there seems to be a need for the movie to specifically appeal to certain personal needs.
and your take on portrayal of jews is just what i am doing. i am not criticizing
500 for being a christmas movie and not something else, that is frankly idiotic and far too often how people dismiss my critiques, with strange misreadings that completely misrepresent what i have actually written, and believe. as i initially wrote, my complaint is with an establishing line that "there are two kinds of people in the world" - well, that would be like saying there are two kinds of religious belief in the world - christian and islamic. if a film were to set itself up like that, i'd imagine your jewish critique might begin to percolate. so, my critique is utterly grounded on the level that the film presents itself, but that does not mean i think what i see is seen by everyone, thus why i post my thoughts, for discussion like this
If the film had contained gay characters and skjerva felt that their portrayal was unrealistic or promoted certain stereotypes then I'd have no problem, but to constantly berate films for not even presenting a certain viewpoint is a faulty argument from the start.
If the film had contained gay characters and skjerva felt that their portrayal was unrealistic or promoted certain stereotypes then I'd have no problem, but to constantly berate films for not even presenting a certain viewpoint is a faulty argument from the start.
i agree, and i hardly "berate films for not even presenting a certain viewpoint". when i critique a film for the way it represents, i explain where my problem with it comes from, and i do think these representations are important to think about, whether or not others agree is another issue