Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I haven't seen the film, and don't have plans to (the reviews I have seen
don't entice me), but I think this is an interesting topic for discussion.
In other forums, some women have objected to the treatment of women in
certain male-centered films as a form of "male pornography".  Might this
film have been designed to appeal to women's egos?  (Certainly there aren't
many films of this nature, as compared to those aimed at men.)

				Steve

    If the film was spacifically made to entice the female of the species,
    I see no problem.  I mean, making movies IS about making money, no?
    
    Most movie goers go for a spacific reason, be them rambo types or gore
    types.  This spacific ave has not been touched much.  The producers saw
    another movie going crowd that needs to have thier egos stroked and
    went for it.  I think its good mathmatics.
    
    Show me a guy that doesnt want to see a good macho ass type rambo movie
    to stroke their egos, and Ill show you a wimp!  :-)
    
    aknowledging a spacific sect of movie goers makes money, at least from
    that sect or people.  And even by some that arent into that sort of
    flick.  Go, you might learn something.  I might.  yea right....:-)
    
    

Before everyone jumps off the deep end about how this movie may (or
may not) be catering to women, bear in mind it was written by
a man and based on what happened to his sister.

I saw the stage version and there (because there are only the
central 6 female characters) how men are treated rarely enters
into it.  I haven't seen the movie yet, but thought to myself that
it wouldn't transfer 100% because they would need to take it out
of the beauty parlor.

Anyway, FWIW, I liked the play and will probably enjoy the movie
almost as much.

Bernard.

    
    I haven't seen the movie yet, friends have told me it was pretty
    good though...In a slightly different vein, does it bother anyone
    else when fathers are portrayed as incompetent idiots when it comes
    to childcare or housework? Don't get me wrong, I laughed at "Mr.
    Mom" as much as the next guy but for once I'd like to see a father
    who isn't portrayed as a complete screw-up when it comes to the
    typically "female oriented" roles in life. This is the eighties
    isn't it? Just something that's been a thorn in my side...
    
    Chris

    
    Hi Al...
    
    Personally, I think it's pretty sickening. Women bitch and moan when
    women are potrayed as sex objects in anything. Then along comes the 
    reverse roles and they say it's time men got theirs. The old double
    standard, cold revenge, it's ok if it's not me crap.
    
    Ken 

    re .5-
    
    Ah, Ken, jumping to generalizations again I see.
    
    > Women bitch and moan when women are potrayed as sex objects in anything. 
      
    Not '*women* bitch and moan', Ken, but *feminists*.  Including me.
    Try to get it right next time, please.  Some men count themselves
    among the numbers of people who oppose objectification.  Saying
    that only women mind it shows us you haven't been paying attention.
    
    And since when does a movie showing a man as inept at housecleaning
    and cooking portray that man as a 'sex object'?  Looks like you
    weren't paying attention to Al, either, even when you tried to agree
    with him.  
                                                                     
    And a final question...if they made a movie about your housecleaning 
    skills, Ken, would anybody pay to see it?  {Thats a trick question, 
    btw- all you're supposed to do is think about it, both sides.}
         
    DougO

    	This may be a cultural difference, but I thought almost everyone
    was a sex object. Admittedly there are some who are only growing  to be
    sex objects, and there is a rumour that I don't believe that you can be
    too old to be a sex object. 
    
    	As a derivation of Darwinian theory, even in a small population
    most people in sex(1) must lust for and/or be attractive to someone in 
    sex(2), otherwise they would become genetically extinct.
    
    	I hope that I am a sex object and more for my wife. I wouldn't like
    to be *less* than a sex object.

    I would not have noticed, even though I did see the film, you have 5
    big name woman actors in the film.  However, a week prior, I was at the
    cinema, and was reading the movie book they give out free, and an
    article was written about the movie.

    If the base noter had read the article, he would have never of entered
    the base note.  The males were the supporting role.  The movie is about
    5 females and their life that centers around a beauty parlor. When the
    male actors read for the part, they were told they would be in the
    background, and they were chosen for that role. Notice you didn't see a
    big name (ie Jack Nicholsen [sp?]), because the movie was about the
    females, and they didn't want a big name drawing from what the film was
    all about.

    I probably haven't given the article justice.  But, there is a reason
    for it, get a hold of the magazine (its free) and read the article...
    its great...

    Gale
    (By the way, my personal name is from that movie, its what one of the
    males said that women are good for :-)...)

    	re:DougO
    
    	Apparently you didn't read my reply......
    
    	K

    I have seen the movie and I didn't think that the men were portrayed
    as weak or useless. The movie just didn't focus on them. It was a
    story about those women and their friendship/relationship with each
    other. One theme at a time as .0 (Ger ?) said. 

>    If the base noter had read the article, he would have never of entered
>    the base note.  The males were the supporting role.  The movie is about
>    5 females and their life that centers around a beauty parlor. When the
>    male actors read for the part, they were told they would be in the
>    background, and they were chosen for that role. Notice you didn't see a
>    big name (ie Jack Nicholsen [sp?]), because the movie was about the
>    females, and they didn't want a big name drawing from what the film was
>    all about.

Now, Gale.  It's not fair to try to predict what I "would" or "would
not" have felt or thought or done.  Neither one of us can accurately
predict that. 

As I already mentioned in .0, I fully realize that the movie was not 
supposed to be about men.  That's wicked cool with me.  I don't have 
an objection to the fact that the men were background.  I don't even 
have an objection as to how they were portrayed in the background.  
All I was doing was reporting what I observed (all the background 
male characters were emotionally weak) and how I felt in response to 
it (a bit depressed).  

I also ask myself the question, "Is it possible to make a movie about
women without making the background male characters 'weak' or 'useless
in an emotional crisis'?"  I'd like to think that it is possible. Alan
Bates character in "An Unmarried Woman" comes to mind.  Alan Bate's
character was not deeply explored in this "women's" movie, but he was
a strong, sympathetic male character.  Could they have had such a 
character in Magnolias?  Maybe...

>    (By the way, my personal name is from that movie, its what one of the
>    males said that women are good for :-)...)

Umm, no.  This is what one of the women said that a man said that
women were good for.  A nit to some, but the distinction is important
to me. 

							--Ger

    re .10, Mike-
    
    >	But there are times when women ARE sex objects.  Men too.
    >
    >	What's so bad about art imitating life?
     
    How many people you know look like Daryl Hannah, Mike?  How many
    people do you know that qualify as movie-star-level sex objects?
    
    What I find bad about the way Hollywood glamorizes sex objects is
    that it sets the standard so high that 98% of the population feels
    inadequate, and ever striving to meet the role.  Sets us up to be
    manipulated by the fitness craze, the makeup and cosmetics industries,
    and all the rest of the marketing that pushes us to make ourselves
    physically more attractive, because we don't yet look like sex objects.
    
    And just suppose you *do* get there.  Just suppose you're now dynamite,
    physically perfact, adored by casual passers-by in the street. Are
    you ready for a relationship?  Well, if you've been putting a whole
    lot of energy solely into perfecting your physical appearance, I'm
    not so sure.  Seems to me that mental and verbal skills, and the
    ability to make someone else feel valued, to appreciate what's good
    about them, would be better skills to have developed.  
    
    And suppose you're a woman, adored by casual passers-by.  Over-adored,
    probably...every creep who undresses you with his eyes, every crowd
    of men that catcalls you might perhaps give you the impression that
    "art imitating life" set a real bad example for such cretins, teaching
    them that all women "want" to receive come-ons from bozos.
    
    And finally, "art imitating life" has been Hollywood's excuse for
    more than 50 years.  That isn't what's really going on.  What's
    going on is catering to fantasies, because sex sells.  The biggest
    problem is that these crummy movies condition us...they manipulate
    us, they affect the culture we have to live in by operating on the
    minds of millions of people that see them.  And I'm not crazy about
    this culture which is so sex-crazy that it even leads people to
    joke about car accidents by comparing horse-vs-auto transportation
    as a choice between places to "make out".  Sorry, Mike- it isn't
    "art imitating life".  Its sleazy movies scumming the culture.
        
    DougO

	 I saw this movie on wednesday and I loved it (Steve please
	 reconsider, the ad for the movie doesn't do it justice at
	 all).  (And I don't like Dolly Parton, and I don't like Sally
	 Fields, so, it was amazing that I liked the movie at all)

	 It appealed to every emotion and I felt like I was part of
	 the cast......................

	 The movie is not about the story-line, but about the
	 relationships among the women.

	 I wouldn't say the men were "emotionally weak" besides
	 Sam Shepard.  There just isn't enough content in the movie
	 regarding the men to make any decision about what kind of
	 character they were portraying...it was almost like watching
	 extras with bit parts.

	 To focus on the aspect of the relationship among these woman
	 was so facinating because the story line of the movie was
	 so insignificant to the movie itself.

	 Very fascinating indeed..............



	 kath

    re. .14
    
    I think you may have it a bit backwards, Doug.  Like Mike says
    celluloid world is a smoked over and glitzy reflection of the real
    world, not the other way around.  Sure, there are people out there who
    have a tough time drawing the line between drama and reality; like the
    people who went out and had their hair styled like Bo Derek's in "10"
    thinking it was actually attractive or that, like Michael Douglas
    in "Wall Street", you had to have slick hair and be a sleaze to
    be respected.  
    
    If you want to take them seriously that, of course, is your perogative,
    but you strike me as being too intelligent to do that. 
    
    In the mean time, you're blaming the low reading on the thermometer for
    the cold weather.
    
    Kris

    Hmmm....not me, guys.
    
    Mike, you say they can only manipulate me "if I let them".
    Well, ok, with my overboard-attitude I think I've shown I'm at least
    aware enough of the problem that you may believe my claim that I've
    tried to armor myself against such manipulation.
    
    But my real argument wasn't about the effect of this sleazy
    manipulation on me; I consider myself as protected as anybody
    I know (by my attitude).  My argument, though, was the effect upon
    "the culture that we all have to live in".  That is, I assert that
    sleazy manipulation *is* mindlessly accepted and effective upon
    far too many schmoes out there.  Hell, *I* don't watch tv, but somebody
    must be...and among those somebodies, can you deny that the culture
    has been affected?  20 years of lousy cop shows and sleazy sitcoms
    has affected this society.
    
    > In the mean time, you're blaming the low reading on the thermometer for
    > the cold weather.
      
    Kris, the argument is more subtle than that.  I'm saying that our
    mass media has been pumping drivel at several hundred millions of
    us over the last many years, and the effects are not plausibly
    deniable.
    
    DougO

>I'm saying that our
>    mass media has been pumping drivel at several hundred millions of
>    us over the last many years, and the effects are not plausibly
>    deniable.

 I'll buy that. You only have to look at youth to see the effects. And they 
often carry the effects well into adulthood.

 The Doctah

    re .0 Ger
    
    many people (men) had similar complaints about "the color purple",
    though i see no reason for alice walker to be real balanced or generous
    about male characters.  
    
    but you know, very few people (men) saw my point when i gagged at "the
    princess bride" - yeah, yeah, the male characters are wonderful, cute,
    hysterical, funny, daring, bright, etc.
    
    the most powerful thing the woman did in that film of derring-do was
    threaten to kill herself (then chicken out), and say "wait 'til my
    prince gets you".
    
    now granted, i *do* prefer *tough*broads* (and hope to be one someday)
    to porcelain dolls, but still!!
    
    it's interesting to hear the play was by a man.
    
    lt

    re .20, Mike-
    
    > To portray visual media, like film and TV, as an evil, manipulative
    > industry strikes me as unfair, and farfetched.
      
    Well, since its me portraying them that way, I obviously disagree,
    and I'll tell you why- that's how they make money.  You earlier
    granted this point, when I made it; "sex sells".  And the picture
    of society that they present with their 'sex' is one that I consider
    to be doing damage to the culture.  I consider it more irresponsible
    than "evil", that's your word, I didn't use it.  But "manipulative"
    it certainly is and on an industry-wide basis, too.  That claim
    is not farfetched at all.
                             
    DougO

    ok, Mike...I don't think you've quite summarized me accurately,
    but I agree we've taken the rathole far enough, and will drop it.
    
    DougO

>    but you know, very few people (men) saw my point when i gagged at "the
>    princess bride"
    
    Well, I missed your original gagging, but I think I can understand your
    point now. I would probably have said something like "Yeah, but it was
    only a movie" to your complaints, and secretly thought "Why is she bent
    out of shape about that?" But seeing how men react to the same
    phenomenon really provides great insight into WHY people react to what
    they consider to be unfair characterizations of members of their group.
    And for this insight, I am thankful.
    
    The Doctah

>	To portray visual media, like film and TV, as an evil, manipulative
>    industry strikes me as unfair, and farfetched.

I can see where this would be true from your perspective, Mike.
Maybe this is because the visual media might not appear to be nasty 
towards things that are important or close to your life.

For instance, things change when seen from other points of view.  For
instance, ask some members of minority groups and women's groups about
visual media, and you'll probably get another perspective.  How many 
white cops arrest black drug dealers in movies?  How often is the 
reverse true?  How often are gay male characters portrayed who are 
remotely resembling what gay men see in their communities?  For that 
matter, how many lesbians are portrayed at all?  How many Asian actors 
are portrayed in roles that have nothing to do with the martial arts?  
How many people in wheel chairs are portrayed in films that are not 
talking about the "issue" of being handicapped?  How often, in films 
about the richness of women's friendships, are men portrayed to be 
ineffectual or wimpy around emotional issues, as I felt the men in 
"Steel Magnolias" were portrayed?

When I go on speaking engagements to talk about being gay, a lot of 
the comments and questions that I hear are directly related to the 
portrayal of gay people in the visual media ("I know this because most 
people say "I don't know of any gay people myself, but...").  We are a 
very visually oriented society; the only other way they could have 
gotten it was from other people or from books.

It is a very bizarre thing to watch TV and most movies with semi
"realistic" themes and not recognize the people they claim to be
portraying.  I think this is hammered home more with minorities and
with women than it is with other groups whose range of characters are
more realistically portrayed. This consistent "slant" in portrayal of
certain types of people may not be "evil," but I certainly feel that
it is fair to call it manipulative, especially since these shows and
films cause very real effects in my day-to-day life, as I can tell
when I have to answer to adults who regurgitate the gay stereotypes 
that are spoon fed to them in the visual media. 

I think you underestimate the power of film and you overestimate an 
adult's ability to screen out the stuff that isn't true.

							--Ger

    
>    many people (men) had similar complaints about "the color purple",
>    though i see no reason for alice walker to be real balanced or generous
>    about male characters.  
    
I see your point.  I remember the complaints about that movie.  
However, I didn't have any objection to the male characters in that 
movie (is it because I could distance myself because I'm not an 
African-American man?).  

I also am not asking that the (male) writer of "Steel Magnolias" 
rewrite his story; as I've already mentioned a few times, I've seen a 
lot of families like that, with strong women and ineffectual men 
(around emotional issues).

All I wanted to point out was my feeling of disappointment and
sadness.  (My feelings are nobody's "fault"; I am responsible for
them; I am not asking any other human being to do anything different,
just to listen to me for a little while without judging me and without
trying to prove my feelings to be "wrong.") I feel very strongly that
it is possible to have a movie about strong women that contains
strong, likeable male characters in the background (like Alan Bates in
"An Unmarried Woman").  I don't believe it is necessary to portray men
as ineffectual in order to showcase the strength of women; it doesn't
have to be an either/or situation. 

I guess I'll have to wait a little while longer for such a movie to be 
made. 

							--Ger

    I find it difficult, if not impossible, to be offended by any portrayal
    I've ever seen in the entertainment media, with the exception of
    offence taken by my sense of intelligence.  But I don't take that
    personally.  Being offended by something crafted for the expressed
    purpose of entertainment is like being offended by an insult from
    a 6 year-old; it speaks more of the "insultee" than the "insulter".
    
    I'm an Oriental who can break a 2 X 4 with my bare hands only if my
    bare hands are holding a big axe.  I'm taller that 4'-11 and have
    straight teeth, speak English real good (or is that, "I talk bitchin'
    English real narley"?) and don't have 2" thick glasses.
    
    If the image a person has of me is derived from portrayals of Orientals
    in the movies, I certainly don't mind because, quite frankly, it's
    difficult for me to find the time to care.
    
    If a person's grip on reality is plastic enough to have their views
    molded by the entertainment industry it's certainly plastic enough
    for me to change their view if it's important enough.  But it rarely
    is.
    
    Kris
    

    Initially, I had no reaction at all to the men in this movie. They
    seemed quite obviously intended as props and had no more significance
    to the plot than the eggs in the trunk. There was a point where I did
    pay attention to their, shall we say, symbolic presence. Let me discuss
    that behind a form feed though, just in case somebody's reading who
    hasn't seen the movie and considers this a spoiler. 

    At the grave scene, the Sally Fields character actually comments,
    something to the effect, that men are weak and women strong. Even in
    her grief, she's proud of the fact that she stayed with her daughter to
    the very end. The men "couldn't deal with it", but she could. 

    My reaction was, "What's she talking about? The men dealt with it. They
    just dealt with it differently. I think I probably would have dealt
    with it just like they did." That got me thinking. Reading more into
    the scene than was probably intended, and ignoring Sally's judgement of
    it, the fact remains, she held her daughter's hand and in doing so,
    seem to reach out to the experience of her daughter's death and
    participate it in completely. The men disconnected themselves from it
    almost as soon as the machines were disconnected. They left the room.
    She remained and risked the full emotional impact. 

    The scene appeared perfectly normal to me. I expected it to work that
    way. 

    In themselves, neither the scene, nor Sally's subsequent comment would
    have really stuck with me if not for the reality around me. I went to
    the movie with four women and they spent the last part of the movie
    crying. I noticed that as we exited the theater that practically every
    women I saw looked like she had spent the last two hours lying on her
    face. 

    I remember thinking in the movie, "Here comes the sad part. Watch out
    or you'll end up crying" and at most, my eyes got a little moist and I
    only had to bite my tongue once. I disconnected myself from the
    emotions the movie was designed to provoke, just like the men in it
    disconnected themselves from their emotions. 

    I think "I can do that. I've been trained to do that." Is this a talent
    or a flaw? Yes, being able to avoid strong emotional reactions has
    prevented me from suffering a lot of grief, but maybe it's also kept me
    at arm's length from a lot of experiences I might have enjoyed more
    thoroughly. I can't see it as a talent, because I really have no
    control over it. If I can predict a strong, emotional situation is
    coming, I automatically disconnect. Maybe that's not a male thing, just
    me. 

    I certainly don't feel depressed at the way men are represented in this
    movie. Rather I feel enlighted by the way women are represented. I
    liked the way the women behaved. It offered me a different way to
    behave. I feel the movie wanted to communicate that message and did. 

    Movies like this, even though they put men in a subordinate role, teach
    me something about the richness of women's lives. How many movies that
    put women in a subordinate role, teach us about the richness of men's
    lives? Some, yes, but many more are merely stereotypical. 

    Speaking of movie messages about men, I'd rather see a movie about
    weak, ineffectual, harmless men, then the usual stuff about strong,
    violent ones. Did you ever notice that strong male characters in movies
    generally seem to have a cause and that more often than not, their
    strength is demonstrated by a violent act? Look at a perfectly
    innocuous film like " Dirty Dancing". The lead male is portrayed as
    unable to articulate his emotions and indeed, to feel anything but
    righteous anger. Righteous anger seems to be a popular emotion among
    men in films. 

    I was totally offended by the scene where, without a single scene in
    which he verbally expresses his concerns, he explodes and beats the
    other guy to a pulp. He returns to his girl friend, who, clearly not
    quite understanding why men must do what they must do, accepts, indeed
    admires and loves him more for his action. I thought, "Sweetheart, get
    real! The man is an animal, not a human being!" Oddly, I was angry with
    women for days for supporting, loving, this kind of behavior in men.
    Then I was angry with the filmmakers. Then I was angry with us,
    society, because this is the way we are and the film merely reflected
    it. 
    

    re:  .22
    
    >>>    Well, since its me portraying them that way, I obviously disagree,
    and I'll tell you why- that's how they make money.  You earlier
    
    That's part of the free enterprise system.  If there is a demand,
    someone will fill it, and make money in the process.   Therefore, two
    sides are satisified.  Nothing wrong there.  It's legal.  It's
    business.
    
    Dwight

    >               -< it's OK to make money, if no laws are broken >-
     
    "OK" in your book, "sleazy, manipulative, irresponsible, detrimental
    to the culture" in mine.  I think we understand each other, and
    I already promised Mike I wouldn't keep beating the horse.
    
    I happen to think they could make plenty of money without being
    so irresponsible and sleazy, thats all.
    
    DougO

    -1
    
    Not "my book" DougO.  It's a question of laws.  If you don't like
    the laws, then fight to change them.  There are many people with
    opinions, ready to state what's right... then there is the law.
    
    DB

    re:  .14  Olson_do
    
    >>>    What I find bad about the way Hollywood glamorizes sex objects is
    that it sets the standard so high that 98% of the population feels
    inadequate, and ever striving to meet the role.  Sets us up to be
    
    I must be in the 2%!  :^)  Nice poll though!
    
    >>>    Seems to me that mental and verbal skills, and the ability to
    make someone else feel valued, to appreciate what's good about them,
    would be better skills to have developed.  
    
    There are many lonely people with many or all of the skills you
    mention too.  Ever read SINGLES?  
    
    >>>    The biggest problem is that these crummy movies condition
    us...they manipulate us, they affect the culture we have to live in by
    operating on the minds of millions of people that see them.  
    
    Not if we're smart enough to separate the two.  I love Star Trek, and I
    believe that one day we'll get to a similar place in time.... but I
    know it's a movie, or a show.  I know it's entertainment.  I pay money
    to go see it and I'm always satisified, even with Star Trek V!  :^)
    
    
    DB

    OK... I see that after reading all of Mike's replies, that my last one
    was on his same thought line.... oh well, perhaps it was worth saying
    again?
    
    DB

>.26>Maybe this is because the visual media might not appear to be nasty 
>.26>towards things that are important or close to your life.
>
>	That's just not true.
>
>	They take cheap shots at many things that I consider important.

Okay, so I was wrong.


				--Ger

RE .30

Maybe I should spell out my biggest objection to the males in this 
movie:

<SPOILER>


>    At the grave scene, the Sally Fields character actually comments,
>    something to the effect, that men are weak and women strong. 

Yes!  It was the grave scene that bothered me the most.  The fact that 
the men checked out on the Julia Roberts and Sally Field during the 
hospital stay didn't bother me as much; that seemed more like a 
statement on mother/daughter bonding then it did on male/female 
reactions to emotional crisis.

...but it was the grave scene that made me want to scream.  The camera
shows a solitary Sally Field standing by her daughter's coffin and
grave, about to break down.  Then, the camera pans to each of the
adult characters.  Every man sees their wife/girlfriend "in need," and
every man walks away from his partner (check it out; there was a
camera pan to all three males, and all three, after hesitating, turn
away from their partners).  I found that _excrutiatingly_ painful. 
Also, to pound the message in, every woman character who sees Sally
standing by the grave goes to her side to "be with her." 

To wrap up any loose ends, Sally lets loose with the reinforcement of 
the stereotype: "Men are weak and women are strong" (though I don't 
remember her exact words).

Maybe I'm coming at this whole situation from a whackball position, 
but I don't think so.  First, one of the reasons why I want a life 
partner very badly is so that he will be with me when things get 
tough, help me through the tough times (there are lots of other 
reasons, too); if my partner left me crying at a grave site without
even checking to see if I needed to be alone or if I needed company, I
think that divorce would be in the works.  I won't stand for a partner
checking out on me in times of emotional crisis; I might as well be
single for all that gives me.  Second, I really, really resent the
implication that the movie made that "Oh well, that's just the way men
are and the way women are."  Bullshit.  That's the way we're trained
(in my opinion), and it's movies like this that reinforce the male
stereotype, just as surely as "Rambo" reinforces the macho, violent
part of the same stereotype; they are the flipside of the same coin.
It gets real tired after a while. 

Finally, I understand what people are saying when they say, "Movies 
and TV aren't real, and any moron would know not to take them 
seriously; I'm not going to worry about cheap shots they've taken."  I 
understand that celluloid is not something that one should base a core 
belief or value on.  That all makes perfect logical sense to me.  
However, that thinking is flawed (in my opinion), because it doesn't 
match up with what I see going on around me.  If movies and TV were 
something that were seen in moderation, then I would agree with you; 
however, it is the mind-numbing repetition with which most Americans 
use these mediums that turns them into dangerous "policy makers."  If 
you are told something often enough--whether in the movies or by your 
parents or on TV--you're going to begin to believe it, no?

What _I_ see going on around me is that, after being exposed to the
values on the tube and screen almost from birth to adulthood
(remember, we are just now seeing the first generations of adults who
were weened on the tube), people (especially children) suck up the
values spoon fed to them through these two mediums (from other
sources, too, but the visual medium is probably the most influential
aside from "parents" in our society today, and even then I wonder if
it's not more so).  People are also told what is "beautiful," "sexy,"
and they are told what to want (I find it hard to believe that Nature
instills in us a desire to possess Nintendo and Reebock Pumps, know
what I mean?). 

If you see something often enough, _especially_ in a lighhearted,
joking, entertaining forum when your "defenses" are down, it sinks in
without you even questioning it.   (I'm going back to a gay example, 
because I know those examples best.)  I can't tell you what it was 
like to watch "St. Elmo's Fire" with a bunch of straight, male college 
students sitting in front of me.  When it was suggested that the 
"sensitive" character was gay, they all went "ewwwwwww" in unison.  
When the gay interior decorator (don't get me started on that 
character!) appeared on the screen, they all went "ewwwww," and some 
called out "faggot!"  When the sensitive one proved his 
heterosexuality by jumping (literally) his best friend's girlfriend, 
they stood up and cheered.  Nice family values, eh?  

And it wasn't just that movie.  I saw the same thing in "Making Love,"
and I've seen it in other movies.  It's as if all the movie goers had
little strings that were being yanked on cue.  And I don't believe
that the movie goers and TV watchers "leave it in the theater/living
room" when the show is done, because I have seen people regurgitate
the same tired lines when I talk to them in person, all this in
_spite_ of the fact that they claim that they don't know any gay
people or that the subject isn't talked about at home that much. 

Movies count.  (Everything counts.)  Stalin once said that if he owned 
Hollywood, the whole world would have been communist by then.  I think 
it is a mistake to underestimate that power.

I guess all I am advocating is for the range of characters to be shown
in some (not all) films.  "Steel Magnolias" was a good film; I'm not
saying there is anything wrong with it.  I _am_ saying that there is
something wrong with a powerful and influential industry that seems to
refuse to depict a father at the deathbed of his daughter or that
refuses to depict a husband going to be by his wife's side during an
emotional crisis for both of them.  Again, not all the time (because
it doesn't happen all the time in life), just some of the time, in some
movies. 

No more mindless repetition of stale roles, please.

("Gerry, get off your soapbox!")


							--Gerry

    You might not want to read this if you haven't seen the movie.
    
    
    Does the fault for the men's behavior lie just with the men?  The
    character played by Sally Field did not seem to allow her husband much
    chance to be supportive.  I recall one scene in the hospital where he
    offers to sit down with his daughter and let his wife go get some rest. 
    Now maybe a mother does not want to leave her daughter at a time like
    this and try and rest but she could certainly have asked her husband to
    join her.  Instead, she pushed him away.  I was somewhat bothered by
    her behavior because it struck me as saying that only a mother could
    feel hurt by a daughter dying.  I don't think she gave her husband a
    chance to feel the pain and I don't think it would have been right for
    him to force his support on her.
    
    							John

    It's ok, Gerry- Mike and Dwight are immune to that sort of
    manipulation (they tell me so), and so must be everybody else 
    in the culture, right?  "It's just entertainment."
    
    DougO

    Ease up, Mike- I told you before that you'd summarized *me*
    incorrectly, too, but I didn't throw in any cracks about handicaps,
    now, did I?
    
    DougO

>           <<< Note 393.34 by DEC25::BERRY "Back to the Future..." >>>

    
>    There are many lonely people with many or all of the skills you
>    mention too.  Ever read SINGLES?  

	 Oh come now, Dwight, not EVERYONE in SINGLES is lonely....in
	 fact, very few are out of the ones that I've met.



	 Yes, sex sells....and there is nothing wrong with that.  Sex
	 is the "forbidden fruit" sort of thing, and we can't deny it.

	 i just wish the media would quit glamorizing sex and be a
	 lot more realistic about it (ie, they just hop into bed
	 without any sort of protection, and VOILA!  for some funky
	 reason the women NEVER get pregnant.)


	 kath

>     <<< Note 393.38 by TLE::FISHER "Work that dream and love your life" >>>

<SPOILER>


>...but it was the grave scene that made me want to scream.  The camera
>shows a solitary Sally Field standing by her daughter's coffin and
>grave, about to break down.  Then, the camera pans to each of the
>adult characters.  Every man sees their wife/girlfriend "in need," and
>every man walks away from his partner (check it out; there was a
>camera pan to all three males, and all three, after hesitating, turn
>away from their partners).  I found that _excrutiatingly_ painful. 
>Also, to pound the message in, every woman character who sees Sally
>standing by the grave goes to her side to "be with her." 

	 Of course they go to Sally's side to be with her.  That is
	 the POINT of the movie.

	 Perhaps I saw it differently than you, I saw a "honey, I'll
	 be there in a minute, she needs me" look given to each of the
	 men, and I saw a "knowing" look in the men's eyes saying
	 "yes, I understand, your friendship is very important and she
	 needs you."
	 
>To wrap up any loose ends, Sally lets loose with the reinforcement of 
>the stereotype: "Men are weak and women are strong" (though I don't 
>remember her exact words).

	 I don't remember this one......
	 
>reasons, too); if my partner left me crying at a grave site without
>even checking to see if I needed to be alone or if I needed company, I
>think that divorce would be in the works.  I won't stand for a partner
>checking out on me in times of emotional crisis;

	 Perhaps I missed something, but I believe the father was with
	 the boys and comforting the boys.........I don't believe I
	 saw the scene where he just "walks away."  When I saw this I
	 just assumed that she "wanted to be alone with her daughter"
	 sort of thing, not that he just "walked away."

	 

         	 kath

    re:  .40  Olson_do
    
    >>>    It's ok, Gerry- Mike and Dwight are immune to that sort of
    manipulation (they tell me so), and so must be everybody else 
    in the culture, right?  "It's just entertainment."
    
    
    Example of another mis-quote.
    
    Dwight

Re: .44,.38

<more comments about specific scenes...>


.44>	 Perhaps I saw it differently than you, I saw a "honey, I'll
.44>	 be there in a minute, she needs me" look given to each of the
.44>	 men, and I saw a "knowing" look in the men's eyes saying
.44>	 "yes, I understand, your friendship is very important and she
.44>	 needs you."
	 
    	Yes, Kath, I saw it the same way you did.
	 
.38>reasons, too); if my partner left me crying at a grave site without
.38>even checking to see if I needed to be alone or if I needed company, I
.38>think that divorce would be in the works.  I won't stand for a partner
.38>checking out on me in times of emotional crisis;

	In addition, there was a specific scene before the funeral
    where Truvy's (Dolly Parton) husband tells her he wants to go to
    the funeral with her.  He also tells her that he didn't know how
    he'd cope if he lost her (something to that effect, anyway).  Here
    was a man who didn't go to 'functions' with his wife, seemed
    wrapped up in his work, etc., yet when it came to this emotional
    crisis, he was there for her.

    	amy

Yet more on that scene....



I think everyone ought to bear in mind that the film was based on
a very strong stage paly (in my opinion).  Unfortunately the
stage play was set in one scene, the beauty parlor, and had ONLY
the 6 women characters in it.

When I heard it was being released as a film I commented to the
woman I saw the play with that I thought it would be difficult
to transfer it well.  She has subsequently seen the movie, with
a group of women friends, and specifically mentioned that the
graveyard scene seemed 'contrived'.  One of that group of women,
whom I discussed the movie with, did not feel the same way about it.

Bear in mind that in the play all 5 remaining women hold this
discussion in the beauty parlor.  Frankly,for me, that was one
of the strongest scenes in the play.  The mothers anger at losing
her daughter sent chills up my spine, and I'm sure I wasn't the
only person moved to tears by what had happened.

The way the men were removed from the scene was probably fairly
contrived, but was also necessary, I'm sure, to have this final
scene work properly.


I guess what I'm saying, again, is don't blame the movie makers,
blame (if you feel you must) the author for writing his play
that way.


Bernard.

>    1) movies in the USA are made to make money. Plain and simple. 
    
>    2) Movies were made to convey a theme or point (at one time). 

This is a wild overgeneralization! Motion pictures, wherever and whenever
made, have had themes. TV shows have themes. Documentaries have themes,
and non-narrative films have themes. In a free-market environment, there
can be relatively few, and a limited exposure for, unprofitable products.
So, of course, films made in USA (and England, and France, and...) must
make money, unless they are supported by government (say, BBC, or the
Canadian Film Board) or by not-for-profit organizations or grants. PBS
falls in this area.

Certainly, commercializm has impacted films, and often negatively, but
I cannot accept that artistic merit has been obliterated by pursuit of
the almighty buck. Even films which are very successful commercially have
themes. Sometimes those themes are buried in sensationalizm, or so poorly
written/acted that they fail artisticly, but the themes are still there.
"Jaws", for instance, is not about "sharks eat people": it's about
the relation of fear to courage. "E.T." is about friendship, and so on.

The examples you give are more of symbolizm than themes. I doubt many
Russian films are about "trains": I suspect that the films are about
"change" (industrializm, social movements, political changes) and use
trains as a symbol for these themes.

I certainly will agree that the majority of films are not of any great
artistic merit, but at no time in history has the majority of ANY art form
been of superior quality- time has simply allowed "the cream to rise".

    I read an article the other day about the actual family that was
    depicted in the play Steel Magnolia's.  The plot was derived from
    actual experiences.  I believe the author of the play was the young
    woman's brother.  He stated that he was very impressed with the
    strength of the southern women and how supportive they were in this
    crisis.  He also stated that the men did not seem to know what to do or
    how to behave.
    
    This can mean many things...and it doesn't necessarily mean anything
    negative about the men.  The fact that women cope with death better
    then men could be because our roles are clearly defined.  We know we
    can cry, and we also know that there are things we need to do, like
    feed the other mourners.
    
    The Pennsylvania Dutch men know what to do when a neighbor's barn
    burns.  They are strong and supportive.  
    
    Maybe this film is about reality.  But there are other realities out
    there.  Let's not neutralize society by negating a positive portrayal
    of a human situation.  
    
    

[Reprinted without permission from American Film, September, 1989.]


Kid Stuff:  Our Panel of Young Experts Rate the Summer Movies
By Lynda Barry


[There is a cartoon of three boys eating burgers.  One says, "I liked
the 'Last Crusade' the best."  Another says, "It shows Indianna Jones
when he was little."  The third says, "Yeah...when he was still River
Phoenix."]


I didn't know a soul who could explain the baffling success of the
summer movies, movies I thought were bombs in every way, until I met
Tom, age 12, and his brothers, Tim, age nine, and David, age six.  I
interviewed them by shouting into the backseat of an old black
Cadillac driven by their aunt, tearing down a Chicago expressway the
hot afternoon we saw "Batman."

Tom: "I thought Batman was going to swear a lot more.  He was so big,
and he kicked people around.  I thought he was going to say a lot of
swears."

Tim: "Not me.  I didn't think he was going to swear because he didn't
hardly talk.  The Joker looked like a swearer."

This leads to a heated discussion over which summer movie had the most
swearing, "Batman" coming out on top, and to an argument over whether
swearing was the reason for "Batman's" PG-13 rating.  They talk about
the rating system with the same outrage on usually reserves for a $65
parking ticket.

Tim: "It's bogus!  How come 'Indianna Jones' was PG-13?"

David, the six-year-old, replies wearily, "The violence, the
violence."

Tom: "What violence?  There wasn't hardly any violence!  A guy got his
head cut off!  You saw one head roll down!  Big deal!"

Tim: "And it was rolling so fast, you couldn't even see it."

Tom: "Same thing for the 'Temple of Doom!'  PG and there's not even
swearing in it."

David: "'Temple of Doom' was bogus!  They ate snakes and monkey
brains, and a guy ate spiders and he burped and he didn't even say
excuse me!"

Their aunt calls to him over her shoulder: "That's why it got PG.
Because the guy didn't say excuse me."

Although they know that violence is supposed to be bad, it's what they
respond to in the most animated way.  In "Batman," the Joker killed a
guy by doing a wild sort of flamenco dance, punctuated by about 15
gunshots.  They sat up in their seats and laughed.  Later, all three
repeated the dance in their living room, aiming their fingers straight
at their mother to show her what the coolest, funniest part of the
movie was.

It would be easy to assume that these kids have an inappropriate
response to violence.  But they are guided by directors who
consciously build gags into fight scenes, sexual threats and murders.
The best coming timing in these movies happens right when someone's
about to bite it.

Another thing I realized from talking to these brothers is that if
these movies had interesting characters and a compelling plot, that
would be great, but without them, no problem.  As manufacturers have
known for years, it's easy to sell bad candy to kids.  As long as
there is a fast regular rhythm of loud noises, special effects and
outrageous death and near-death experiences, the films still work.
For kids, these movies are like a wild ride at Disneyland, only with
music, blood, swearing and screaming ladies in their underwear.

They're not experiencing a story, they are experiencing sensory
thrills.  Tim's favorite part of Star Trek V was when "this guy"
falls from the side of a mountain---that it was Captain Kirk is
something his brother has to remind him of.  David's favorite scene is
one that neither of his brothers remembers.  "That part where these
rocks open up---there was a circles like ribs, and then Satan came up
and he was pretending like he was God."  His brother's response is a
protective, quietly spoken, "What are you _talking_ about, man?"

Women rarely appear and barely figure in the plots of the summer
movies.  Tim explains this by using the only evidence given him by the
filmmakers.  "Girls are no good," he says.  "They never do anything."
David adds, "All's they talk about is love, all's they want to do is
kiss."  When I explain to them that women act that way in films
because the writers don't give them anything interesting to do, they
look at me blankly.

This attitude toward women has devastating consequences when we pull
into a Wendy's for lunch.  They are giving away Jetson's toys, and
David is crushed when he gets Judy, the worst of the Jetson's because
she's a girl.

As we're walking out, their aunt hands me the abandoned Judy.  Tim
asks me, "Ever see a movie called 'Crud'?"

"No," I say.

His older brother sucks his last hit of Mountain Dew and calmly says,
"That's because there is no movie called 'Crud.'  He just wanted to 
see if you would lie."

Their aunt and I crack up, and they tell me to be sure and write down
that their favorite summer movie was "Crud."