love

Author Topic: Top 100 Club: Sandy  (Read 56558 times)

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #290 on: June 08, 2021, 01:13:42 PM »
It's with a lot of reflection on my own life and history as well as a broader study of economics and politics that I can safely say I find the middle class the biggest impediment to human-centered progress that there is. The upper class is small in number, so while they have vast influence, it's only through the consent of the middle-class that the current world order seems to be maintained. The working class/working poor are greatest in number around the world, but aren't organized well enough to just chop the head off the beast. The middle-class are generally well-educated, live comfortably, and vote at greater numbers than their poorer counterparts. They just don't seem to care that so many people are struggling, or take up narratives to minimize the the quality struggle, including victim-blaming and subscribing to bogus "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mantras.


To me, if someone like her, with her patience and kindness can't help guide people to changes, then who really can? The answers are Ken, Mary, Joe, etc., have to take control of their own lives. Only 1 of the 3 seem at all willing to step up to their challenges.

While I don't disagree, it is an iteresting conclusion, given the previous paragraph.

Well you can’t contribute nothing to your own well-being. Society needs to change, but people shouldn’t take a passive role in their own lives, either. That is all to say, people in privileged positions need to ally themselves with people struggling for both to reclaim and assert their humanity.  It’s kind of macro vs. micro. On an individual level, act to make your life better and try to help people around you; on a societal level, overthrow the masters, so that people on an individual and group level have the right to self-determination. Easier said than done, and much more complicated than that, but that’s the foundation of my POV.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #291 on: June 08, 2021, 08:17:13 PM »
This is going to be a mix of my own class politics and film observations.

In a sense, you have it right in the first sentence ["As I understand this, your struggle is not that they're middle class, but that they're not socially conscious."] if they were real people. This is where the line between real and fiction comes into play, and it's a line I often struggle to even realize. Mike Leigh's middle class world here is very contained, too much so for my own liking. Maybe that's just reality for the middle class, and perhaps in Gerrie's professional and personal impotence (not incompetence, as I think you may have misread me saying) toward affecting change in others, despite being eminently decent and likable in basically every way, Leigh is making a criticism of the bourgeois mentality. Perhaps he is pointing to them as well-intentioned drags on human progress. That might be a leap, though.

I only have a little window of time, so might not be able to unpack all of this tonight, but I can get a start on it. I can't imagine Leigh thinks his characters, Tom and Gerri, are drags on human progress. That seems like projecting. I presented the backgrounds that the film provides to show that they are living lives intentionally and in service of their fellowman. We don't have information on what boards they are on, or what volunteer work they do. Who knows how much of their garden they donate to others? Who knows what charities they give to? To put the whole of  humanity's problems on this elderly couple seems heavy. They're two people, who go out and "slay dragons" all day and then come back and find a sense of peace in the sanctuary they've created for themselves in their home, garden and in their relationship. I believe Leigh is holding them up as an idea of how to live in this crazy world. Is it the perceived lack of social consciousness that bothers you most, or is it their peaceful/copacetic way of existing while perhaps being full of social consciousness? If it is the second, that's something Leigh would be interested in you sitting with.

I wrote incompetent, because when I read that you think Gerri is impotent as a therapist, that equals incompetence in my book. She's not powerless and this character, with her particular skill set, probably helped countless people with their lives. The people who are impotent in this film are Ken and Mary. They are unable, or unwilling to change. No one, not even the most competent of therapists can change someone who is unwilling to do so. Tom and Gerri are powerful people because they understand this and still wish to be friends to these difficult people, knowing that its fully up to them to decide what to do. They meet people where they're at and unless they do something that crosses an important boundary (which Marry did), they continue to befriend.

Quote
Important to note, I don't hate the middle-class, although it might come off like that. My mom is middle-class, most of my family are firmly in the middle class, I grew up in the middle class. After 15 years of teaching, I finally make a middle-class salary. It's with a lot of reflection on my own life and history as well as a broader study of economics and politics that I can safely say I find the middle class the biggest impediment to human-centered progress that there is. The upper class is small in number, so while they have vast influence, it's only through the consent of the middle-class that the current world order seems to be maintained. The working class/working poor are greatest in number around the world, but aren't organized well enough to just chop the head off the beast. The middle-class are generally well-educated, live comfortably, and vote at greater numbers than their poorer counterparts. They just don't seem to care that so many people are struggling, or take up narratives to minimize the the quality struggle, including victim-blaming and subscribing to bogus "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mantras. There's more to it that is flowing through my head, but I think that's my basic analysis of class as I see it right now; and while this film is British, I feel that their politics is more like America's than any other country you could compare America to. ALL THAT SAID, it's hard for me to watch people in the contained world worry just about their middle-class problems, mostly in regards to relationships and self-image, and not find it all so sheltered off from the rest of the world in a way that leaves me feeling very uneasy.

This begs the question, are you uneasy being middle class? It feels like there is some guilt associated with this position.

Most of the middle class people I know are neck deep in mortgage and credit card debt. They are also volunteering a lot of time and giving 10 percent of their income to their church. They are trying to eke out a semblance of prosperity, but are burdened with what comes with that. I struggle with this us and them mentality. Middle class may be the largest societal group, but they are also vastly diverse. I don't think we can make progress unless we try and understand a class before we try and change a class. Same goes for the poor and houseless. We should all be upping our empathy game, but that is so hard to do when tribalism is such a huge human trait.

Quote
Quote
I don't see it as an example of Gerri's incompetence, but as setting-the-stage for how humans don't wish to delve into what is really going on or to deal with the roots of their problems, but would rather find the quick fix. Whether it's sleeping pills, drinking, consumerism, the results are that nothing changes and nothing heals. Tom and Gerri are helpless with Ken and Mary, because only Ken and Mary can choose to change.

That's essentially why I used "impotence" in my write-up. To me, if someone like her, with her patience and kindness can't help guide people to changes, then who really can? The answers are Ken, Mary, Joe, etc., have to take control of their own lives. Only 1 of the 3 seem at all willing to step up to their challenges.

I agree.

Okay, I've opined plenty. I'll be back for the rest of your post. I appreciate the dialogue.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #292 on: June 08, 2021, 11:01:00 PM »
This isn't the Politics thread, so I'm not going to respond to questions about my personal politics beyond what has to be understood to understand my perspective on Another Year. My views on class and politics, including my own personal upbringing and how I view it, are better off in a No Movie Talk Allowed thread.

Impotent just means powerless. All I mean is Gerri is powerless to directly affect change in others. Psychology is a field in a very primitive phase right now. Different forms of talk therapy have different impacts, but there is no A-to-B causality in approaches, so even if she works by the book, her efforts could amount to nothing. That's impotence. She might have exceptional skills for this period in time, but that still doesn't mean everyone who comes to her will end up better off. That to me is akin to the larger class struggle, where well-intentioned middle-class people take up careers or causes they think are good, without ever making any sort of lasting change.

Quote
I presented the backgrounds that the film provides to show that they are living lives intentionally and in service of their fellowman. We don't have information on what boards they are on, or what volunteer work they do. Who knows how much of their garden they donate to others? Who knows what charities they give to? To put the whole of  humanity's problems on this elderly couple seems heavy. They're two people, who go out and "slay dragons" all day and then come back and find a sense of peace in the sanctuary they've created for themselves in their home, garden and in their relationship. I believe Leigh is holding them up as an idea of how to live in this crazy world. Is it the perceived lack of social consciousness that bothers you most, or is it their peaceful/copacetic way of existing while perhaps being full of social consciousness? If it is the second, that's something Leigh would be interested in you sitting with.

I don't see them as slaying dragons, and I don't see them as living in service of others. Even Tom admits that his career choice is selfish. I'm not putting the whole of humanity on them, so I don't necessarily need them to be laying the foundation of the revolution to be recognized as quality human representations, I'm saying their contained middle-class world is a problem to the greater human experiment, as it is with the consent of many complacent individuals that our current ruling order exists. I do not find comfortably middle-class people as generally sympathetic - maybe more in comedy than drama, to be honest. That is what prevents me from fully embracing a film like Another Year. There are other films made by privileged people that depict privileged people that I can get into, characters I can love, but it usually involves comedy and deconstruction of bourgeois values. Here, I think perhaps you are right, that Leigh holds up Tom and Gerri as an idea of how to live in this world, but it's not one that I find inspiring in the least, which probably results in my middling take on the film.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 08:29:30 PM by Eric/E.T. »
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #293 on: June 09, 2021, 10:46:12 AM »
Quote
I guess I don't quite know what this is. What is being taken for granted? I think it shows Tom and Gerri's middle-class existence. Is middle class a "type"? I believe I'm middle class and my life doesn't look anything like theirs.

Taken for granted is that people can depend on long, steady careers in the fields of their choosing, which will afford them the time and influence to host little dinner parties and other engagements, and the topics of conversation will be contained to fairly bourgeois topics as romantic relationships and the old unmarried, unfulfilled person's ennui. Big time privileges the majority of people in this world will never have. The interesting thing will be to see if the current brand of gangster capitalism eventually destroys the middle class, and all these little dinners on the lawn, the private gardens, the overall security of lifetime jobs and good pensions, go away with it, and we get down to the real business of the 99% taking it to the 1% in a real and permanent way. I wish nobody ill will, that's just what will happen if the top earners keep hoarding their money and wealth and combatting a more egalitarian way.

There's so much here that speaks truth to me too. I do think this time is here in many ways. Gone are the secure jobs and pensions. I guess I also see so many middle class people struggling that it's hard for me to paint a broad brush on the middle class experience. Yes, there are those who are complacent, but that's not everyone.

Well you can’t contribute nothing to your own well-being. Society needs to change, but people shouldn’t take a passive role in their own lives, either. That is all to say, people in privileged positions need to ally themselves with people struggling for both to reclaim and assert their humanity.  It’s kind of macro vs. micro. On an individual level, act to make your life better and try to help people around you; on a societal level, overthrow the masters, so that people on an individual and group level have the right to self-determination. Easier said than done, and much more complicated than that, but that’s the foundation of my POV.

I know this was a comment to smirnoff, but this paragraph sounds ideal. The only exception is that I don't know what overthrow the masters looks like to you. Your overthrow might be more bold than what I envision. :)

This isn't the Politics thread, so I'm not going to respond to questions about my personal politics beyond what has to be understood to understand my perspective on Another Year. My views on class and politics, including my own personal upbringing and how I view it, are better off in a No Movie Talk Allowed thread.

Fair enough. I was just trying to ascertain how your expectations of this couple were so unreachable.

Quote
Impotent just means powerless. All I mean is Gerri is powerless to directly affect change in others. Psychology is a field in a very primitive phase right now. Different forms of talk therapy have different impacts, but there is no A-to-B causality in approaches, so even if she works by the book, her efforts could amount to nothing. That's impotence. She might have exceptional skills for this period in time, but that still doesn't mean everyone who comes to her will end up better off. That to me is akin to the larger class struggle, where well-intentioned middle-class people take up careers or causes they think are good, without ever making any sort of lasting change.

Yikes. There's got to be grace somewhere in the attempt. I mean teaching is one of the most challenging and thankless jobs out there, but it's the most important tool we have to create growth and change. One student given a new way of looking at the world is creating lasting change in that one person. As humanity as a whole, it's not over until it's over. Humans are a work in progress.

Saying "Gerri is powerless to directly affect change in others" is a statement that is too broad a stroke. She may have had many successful outcomes in her career. Never and always statements are hard for me to get behind.

Quote
I don't see them as slaying dragons, and I don't see them as living in service of others. Even Tom admits that his career choice is selfish. I'm not putting the whole of humanity on them, so I don't necessarily need them to be laying the foundation of the revolution to be recognized as quality human representations, I'm saying their contained middle-class world is a problem to the greater human experiment, as it is with the consent of many complacent individuals that our current ruling order exists. I do not find comfortably middle-class people as generally sympathetic - maybe more in comedy than drama, to be honest. That is what prevents me from fully embracing a film like Another Year. There are other films made by privileged people that depict privileged people that I can get into, characters I can love, but it usually involves comedy and deconstruction of bourgeois values. Here, I think perhaps you are right, that Leigh holds up Tom and Gerri as an idea of how to live in this world, but it's not one that I find inspiring in the least, which probably results in my middling take on the film.

I was unsuccessful in presenting my arguments for the decency and admirable qualities about this particular couple and therefore them being a valuable ideal. I do think that the odds were against me from the get go. The condemnation of the middle class is entrenched in your world view and I can find some understanding in it from your words.

A long time ago, sedaleus (a filmspotter) took issue with my negative reaction to In the Mood for Love. He said something to the affect of, "Not everything is about you." He was absolutely right, but he was also a little wrong. When it comes to movies and how we react to them, it is all about us. We come to a movie fully ourselves and that's why our experiences are so individual.

Thanks for talking with me about the film. I think I learned some things. :)

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #294 on: June 14, 2021, 01:02:47 AM »
Wanted to respond to this AT LEAST once more, but I've been visiting so much with family and friends in Michigan that I haven't had the time. Tonight, I do.

Quote
There's so much here that speaks truth to me too. I do think this time is here in many ways. Gone are the secure jobs and pensions. I guess I also see so many middle class people struggling that it's hard for me to paint a broad brush on the middle class experience. Yes, there are those who are complacent, but that's not everyone.

We went from the gilded age to the age of an expanding middle class largely because of expanding (and what seemed like enshrining) workers' rights, to what we see now, which feels like the beginning of another gilded age, so I totally see what you're seeing insofar as people getting pushed out of the middle class. In that, Leigh's view into the world of the middle-class can seem antiquated just over a decade after its release. With that said, these people still give their assent to the ruling class at the ballot box and through basic inertia, persistent in their determination to make things as they were as opposed to embracing a new reality, however dire it may currently seem, and looking for a solution.

That leads to the whole "overthrowing the masters" thing, and all I want to emphasize is that, unlike communist revolutions of the past, a common vision amongst my friends at DSA and other likeminded people I've met is that it's nonviolent in nature, and without one particular person being able to lead it. Without going too in depth, it involves replacing the current capitalist structure that allows private wealth to accumulate into the hands of a few elites with a more egalitarian system where everyone has a stake in their (our) business and any surplus in production goes to the welfare of the many, through health care, education, universal pensions, etc., and not the enrichment (private jets, etc.) of the few. Anything more than this really does need to go to the Politics thread, but I wanted to clarify this, as I think the Cold War, Chariman Mao, Stalinism, and Reagan's bloody pursuit of communists, even when they had been selected in popular elections, has warped just about everyone's views of what a government and economic system by and for regular people would look like.


Quote
Saying "Gerri is powerless to directly affect change in others" is a statement that is too broad a stroke. She may have had many successful outcomes in her career. Never and always statements are hard for me to get behind.

It's not a judgment, though. It only is meant to hint at the complexity of helping others or changing human behavior.


Quote
I was unsuccessful in presenting my arguments for the decency and admirable qualities about this particular couple and therefore them being a valuable ideal. I do think that the odds were against me from the get go. The condemnation of the middle class is entrenched in your world view and I can find some understanding in it from your words.

A long time ago, sedaleus (a filmspotter) took issue with my negative reaction to In the Mood for Love. He said something to the affect of, "Not everything is about you." He was absolutely right, but he was also a little wrong. When it comes to movies and how we react to them, it is all about us. We come to a movie fully ourselves and that's why our experiences are so individual.

I mean, you made your point well, I just don't agree. Far as coming to the discussion with your own worldview as a part of it, that is to me an intuitive truth. To tell someone "not everything is about you," seems to me like some sort of defense mechanism or an insubstantive response to substantive criticism that you don't agree with. However much my opinion on a film is colored by my hopes and dreams for the world, people still have to tell me why I'm wrong and address my exact criticisms. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to listen to anything they say. You, however, made many valid points about the couple and the general direction of the film that I absorbed. That's what makes a worthwhile conversation. Yet at this point, I think we're more firmly in a philosophical place than anywhere too close to the film Another Year. That is not without its value, however. :)
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #295 on: June 16, 2021, 12:11:06 AM »
Thanks for the response, Eric. I too am constrained for time, since I'm watching two of my grandsons while my daughter is doing her last summer intensive for a graduate degree. I love these little guys, but Oh How I Have No Time to Write (let alone think)! I still want to respond to this and to your other review. I haven't forgotten!

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #296 on: June 18, 2021, 07:45:42 PM »
We went from the gilded age to the age of an expanding middle class largely because of expanding (and what seemed like enshrining) workers' rights, to what we see now, which feels like the beginning of another gilded age, so I totally see what you're seeing insofar as people getting pushed out of the middle class. In that, Leigh's view into the world of the middle-class can seem antiquated just over a decade after its release. With that said, these people still give their assent to the ruling class at the ballot box and through basic inertia, persistent in their determination to make things as they were as opposed to embracing a new reality, however dire it may currently seem, and looking for a solution.

That leads to the whole "overthrowing the masters" thing, and all I want to emphasize is that, unlike communist revolutions of the past, a common vision amongst my friends at DSA and other likeminded people I've met is that it's nonviolent in nature, and without one particular person being able to lead it. Without going too in depth, it involves replacing the current capitalist structure that allows private wealth to accumulate into the hands of a few elites with a more egalitarian system where everyone has a stake in their (our) business and any surplus in production goes to the welfare of the many, through health care, education, universal pensions, etc., and not the enrichment (private jets, etc.) of the few. Anything more than this really does need to go to the Politics thread, but I wanted to clarify this, as I think the Cold War, Chariman Mao, Stalinism, and Reagan's bloody pursuit of communists, even when they had been selected in popular elections, has warped just about everyone's views of what a government and economic system by and for regular people would look like.

I'm listening. Truly. Some of these big ideas are scary to the people who have been taught to fear them. Even I feel resistance when I read your words and I've been dismantling my whole world view for the past 10 years or so. I've come to a place that when I feel resistance, I try and lean into the words instead, so I appreciate you writing them down.

Tom and Gerri helped move my thoughts to the left, because of the quiet way they accepted people where they were at. (Judgement is a harsh tenet of high demand religions). I saw this film several years ago, so it may just be a bit outdated as you say, but so was/am I. :)

Quote
Quote
Saying "Gerri is powerless to directly affect change in others" is a statement that is too broad a stroke. She may have had many successful outcomes in her career. Never and always statements are hard for me to get behind.

It's not a judgment, though. It only is meant to hint at the complexity of helping others or changing human behavior.

Hmmm, I don't know. It comes across as a judgement. Complexity isn't painted with broad "all/nothing" strokes. It's okay if we disagree here.

Quote
I mean, you made your point well, I just don't agree. Far as coming to the discussion with your own worldview as a part of it, that is to me an intuitive truth. To tell someone "not everything is about you," seems to me like some sort of defense mechanism or an insubstantive response to substantive criticism that you don't agree with.

I can't really blame him though. It was a beloved film of his and I just wasn't buying the story. It must have been a big frustration to him.

Quote
However much my opinion on a film is colored by my hopes and dreams for the world, people still have to tell me why I'm wrong and address my exact criticisms. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to listen to anything they say.

It's a fair and pragmatic approach.

Quote
You, however, made many valid points about the couple and the general direction of the film that I absorbed. That's what makes a worthwhile conversation. Yet at this point, I think we're more firmly in a philosophical place than anywhere too close to the film Another Year. That is not without its value, however. :)

For sure. This all goes way beyond two elderly people sitting in their garden plot. :)

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #297 on: June 19, 2021, 11:31:37 PM »
To Sir, with Love


This film takes a fairy typical arc regarding a teacher and a "difficult population" of students: Teacher starts in over their head, finds an in with the students, the students take to the teacher, but then also the teacher starts to learn more about the students and the relationship deepens. Generally, there is a rub, where deeper cultural misunderstandings are crystallized, but then are overcome by the general humanity of both the teacher and the students. I would say that these films don't generally work because they're written and directed by people in the more privileged group, usually the group of the teacher, and yes, usually white people, and also, they are too simple. This one is a little different from the likes of Freedom Writers, McFarland USA, Dangerous Minds, etc., because it's about a Black teacher in a London school populated by working class and primarily white kids, and the original source material was written by a Black man of the same background as the teacher. It's even different than, and superior to, Lean On Me in that its teacher, Mr. Thackeray aka "Sir", eschews the "get tough" approach that has been so damaging to education over the years, favoring a more humanistic methodology that includes learning about his students and responding to their needs, all the while emphasizing manners and respect alongside his more holistic approach to education. In that, it's a fairy forward-thinking drama for its time, even if there are elements that date the film. Actually, I think the part that seemed the most real to me is also a portion that I think non-teachers would find less realistic, and it is this: The students are tamed fairly easy in this picture. It's as if they were waiting for a strong, positive, caring role model to enter their lives. In my experience, this is accurate, even if it might seem unimaginable to an outsider. When we forget what it is to be a kid, we might view such difficult young people from working class families to be simply overwhelming to one solitary individual. However, when a person who is skilled at relating to and working with young people comes into their midst, the transformation can at times feel a bit magical. I speak not of my own impact, but the impact I've seen skilled educators have on kids, as well as the impact poor teachers have on students. It's a fascinating dynamic, though unfortunately one that leads to overly-simplistic narratives that the film industry has snapped up over the years.

I understand what you're saying. I too see youth thrive with a caring and skilled educator. I still remember the teachers who took the time to know me and who were interested in what I had to say. A few even changed my trajectory as a person. To be seen and known is a big deal.

Quote
Strangely, though these issues are much closer to my heart than the bourgeois melancholy of One Year, I still come down far less favorable on To Sir, with Love because of some of the overall cheesiness and the poor acting of the ensemble of school kids. It tries to win style points with the music, dancing, and dress that is too period-specific without a notion of universality, while also carrying with it the baggage of the fairly bad hit single that carries the same title as the film.

What?! I love that song! :))

I'm a little confused by "too period-specific." That would be like saying the clothes in Mean Girls were too period-specific. Both films reflect the fashion of the day. How can that be a criticism of the film? It's not a period drama.

Quote
It also has a plot that is too facile, even as I am glad that it is less about working miracles than it is about relating to people. The transformation the class takes should require a few more scenes, a few more missteps, a little more complexity than what is on offer here. In that, this is better than most teacher-centered films about school that I have seen, but that is also not a category of films that has any remarkable entrants. The French film The Class is the closest I think it comes, though I haven't seen it since I caught it on Netflix DVD over a decade ago, and its teacher is not exactly a role model to be followed. Sidney Poitier is pretty great here, but he can't carry the film all by himself, in terms of performance. And, considering Poitier, the script is very shallow when it comes to race, and gives him very little to work with in terms of developing Mr. Thackeray as a whole, Black person. It'd be interesting to see how it contrasts with E.R. Braithwaite's original work, and it'd also be interesting to see what modern Black critics might have to say about his character in today's terms.

I think this brings us back to the idea of how we look at films through the lens of history. There have been so many conversations here about how to approach race through older movies. Imitation of Life, The Searchers... They will all fall short from our current perspectives, but how did they impact the people at the time? It's true, To Sir, with Love is limited in it's acting and storyline, but it is a product of its time and a mindset of movie making then. It may feel slight, but many films in the 60's have a smilier level of story telling. The film gave me a view into something I hadn't seen on film before and it had a big impact on me when I was a youth, even though I was 2 decades removed.

I"d be interested in knowing what you think of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. It was pretty jarring at the time, but I wonder if you might feel it wasn't enough in its approach.

Quote
I did make many gestures during the film, mostly of the "stop, don't do that" cutting at the throat variation. Every time Pamela, one of his students, around 18 years old at shooting and in the film, and Thackeray were alone, I was like, No, don't be alone with your female student, don't let her flirt with you, don't call her Pamela, don't dance with her, no, you are asking for it! I suppose "dancing with" someone then didn't involve the level of physical contact it generally does in our current age, but still, I was just like, Run away, teacher! Run, run and don't look back! Stick with Ms. Gillian! Better yet, just run away from them all! You'll thank me later! Maybe that sounds paranoid or sexist, but I have seen too much when it comes to men judged before they can defend themselves in schools. You have to know how to play defense and never be alone with anyone just to avoid the he said/she said stuff. And I didn't want to see Mr. Thackeray get caught up. He seemed like a pretty good dude.

Haha! I hear you! Sheesh, he's just asking for trouble being so familiar with the students.

Quote
Mom's Take:
Mom said at the beginning that she loved To Sir, with Love, so she had a leg up on me as I'd never seen it. She says she'd seen it as a teenager. Mom says that she still loves it. She thinks Sidney Poitier is excellent in the film, as well as nice-looking. She finds the film to be quite inspirational, and thinks she related to the kids when she was young, as well as to Thackeray as she got older. As a young woman, she found Lulu, the song, and all of the fashion trends to be quite amazing. Shorter skirts, bigger hair, all gravy. It all still holds up for her.

Cute! It sounds like she saw it in real time!  There's something about a new film as a teenager, whether it holds up later on or not. Movies like Footloose, Pretty in Pink, Back to the Future, Taps... seeped into my DNA right then and there. It's as much of a memory of that time, as it is the actual film.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #298 on: June 20, 2021, 12:55:22 AM »
Cute! It sounds like she saw it in real time!  There's something about a new film as a teenager, whether it holds up later on or not. Movies like Footloose, Pretty in Pink, Back to the Future, Taps... seeped into my DNA right then and there. It's as much of a memory of that time, as it is the actual film.

And maybe that's where my (admittedly weird) "too period-specific" comment comes from. That was my round-about way of saying, If you aren't aware of those times and even that specific song, it's going to seem a lot more cheesy than if you'd lived around that time, especially if you were a kid. On a personal level, movies were important to me growing up, but I had a taste that I think compared to a lot of people here would be considered unusual. Cruel Intentions and Election were high school movies I liked quite a bit, which are probably on the upper end of quality in terms of what I was watching, and I enjoyed them in large part because they helped express some of my angst about suburban life (I moved to the suburbs between ages 15-18 and HATED IT); also, they were quite racy. I wonder how teenagers now would view them. I just saw Plan B, and that makes Cruel Intentions seem like, well...To Sir, With Love? lol
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Top 100 Club: Sandy
« Reply #299 on: June 29, 2021, 04:23:34 AM »
Re: Another Year

I imagine there is thematic intention behind Tom's profession being geology, Gerry psychology, and the film itself being titled Another Year. Tom, Gerry and the film itself are all dealing with mere glimpses of a larger story. Tom study's the past, Gerry tries to encourage positive changes in the future, and the film observes the change in phase from one to the other.

I feel the film is honest about what could actually happen in such a span of time as this. This is the pace of life. It's taken half of Mary's life to reach this point, and it may take the other half to come back out of it. This film, even given a years time, doesn't tell that story, but only shows a few small waypoints. Core samples we have to draw lines between and extrapolate theories from. Interactions which we hope might affect the characters' trajectories positively, but with too narrow a view of the timeline to actually perceive it.

In that context I'm not sure there's enough information here to determine the impotence of Gerry during a particular counselling session, for example. Or to say perhaps whether Tom and Gerry are enablers. The real impotence may be in expecting or thinking this glacier could move any faster, or slower, or left or right. Not that large and rapid change isn't possible, but I think what the film touches on is that there's only so much people can contribute to bring change about. I see Tom and Gerry as trying to create those circumstance for their friends, but also being conscious of the natural limitations. And not beating themselves up over not being able to do more, or when something doesn't happen sooner. Their time spent in their community garden is not merely an peaceful escape for them, it is also a manifestation of this principle and perhaps why they seem so content. They can prepare the ground, and create shade, and fertilize and water, but that is kind of the human limit for effecting change. In the end a tomato can only grow so quickly if it happens to grow at all.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2021, 04:31:18 AM by smirnoff »