Since this movie eloquently portrays society as clearly divided into cliques, which one did you belong to?
(I know the intended point was to say they were not that easily stereotyped, but the movie totally does so nonetheless}.
I was none of the above. I was the kid that called this bullshit.
[deleted]
I got along with everybody in my class. I guess I didn't fit any stereotype.
shareBut that's impossible, you had to fit into one stereotype.
I guess you were the popular kid then, I am not sure which one that is here.
I wasn't really popular. I guess I was like Brian without the brains 😊
shareThere's a kind of High School student, that I call the "Average Joe" (if it's a guy) or the "Plain Jane" (if it's a girl).
They don't really fit into the more obvious classic stereotypes (nerds, goths, jerk jocks, alpha bitches, etc).
Therefore, they will not be noticed as much and will mostly just "blend in".
But they do exist and perhaps even are the majority of the students in most classes.
Maybe that is what you were.
I'm anything BUT average:-)
Seriously, I just was not into these cookie cutter stereotyes, and I believe most people are not either. If I was in a category, it had my own name on it.
I wander why humans find it so useful to label everything. It must be their limited brain capacity, it's easier to put thing in categories and move on, rather than take the time to really understand something.
Well, that reply was to a different poster.
But still, I have to say that the stereotypes are much more realistic than you seem to think.
Plus, he was the one saying that oldmate had to fit into a stereotype. Dudes contradicting himself all over the shop.
shareI admire non-conformity in young people as long as there is some good thinking behind it, and relate to middle class struggling families, so I kinda liked Bender. But I have never condoned bullying. He seemed like he wanted to fit in on his own terms but felt like he'd be rejected immediately. An angry, frustrated young man.
I wanted to look like a junior Gregg Allman but I wasn't really built for it. And I wanted people to like me for being genuine. Wish I had been athletically gifted but that wasn't in the cards, and slacked too much to get on any honor roles (rolls?).
Certainly not good looking, but I tried to be as thoughtful and mature as possible, so the only people who gave me problems were already jerks and everyone could see it.
Fortunately, my HS at the time was fairly mellow. like Dazed and Confused w/o the hazing.
Sorry for not really answering the OP, but I liked the movie when it was new.
I was the classic lone wolf, scorned by all the cliques. Home schooling, where were you when I needed you?
shareI think I had a little of each character, but The Freak is probably the closest to me. Even though I was very handsome as a teen, I just never saw myself that way. I didn't really like the kids in high school and I just stayed away from most of them. I had friends, but most of them weren't from the town I was from.
shareYour OP is. . .to put it gently. . .completely wrong.
The movie doesn't say any such thing about "society." It says things about HIGH SCHOOL. A far, Far different postulate.
Further: you're right that the point was that they were not stereotypes. It does this by illustrating the types of people they were seen to be. So your objection to this is baseless. . .unless you really want to try to claim these types of stereotypes don't (didn't) exist, and these kids weren't the types to be identified (by their peers) as such.
You seem to have missed the point completely.
Not really. The point of the movie is clear. But it doesn't really stand by it, it actually fails and contradicts it, as these kids embody those stereotypes to the fullest and identify with them.
They only lament that a jock also has some deeper side, the nerd is not only about school, etc. But THEY STILL ARE CONSIDERED a jock, a nerd etc.
My problem is: these definitions are superficial labels that simpleminded people need to make sense of the world and of the people around them.
The only thing they define is the person using them.
You're going in circles.
You say the "point of the movie" is that these kids don't conform to the stereotypes their peers/society assigns to them.
Then you say they "embody them to the fullest."
Then you describe some of the ways they DON'T.
Then you repeat that they're still "considered" those stereotypes. (By who? The viewer? Not if they understand the movie.)
They you repeat "your problem," which seems to be that you don't understand how you're contradicting yourself.
Then you end w/yet another iteration of the same: these labels don't fit these kids; something the viewer *and* the characters come to see. . .and which is the whole point of the movie.
Shrug. No idea what you see as a "failure" in the movie; you've essentially described exactly what it's saying. Thematically *and* explicitly, w/the ending voiceover.
This movie is the equivalent of a porn that petitions to stop sex.
That's not ME going in circles, it's the movie.
I'm just pointing it out.
The characters (and the movie in general) consider themselves, from start to finish, as a nerd, a jock, a criminal, a princess, a basketcase. They start that way, they state that they are not only that way, then they end back that way. They lament that such labels don't describe everything about them, yet they stick to them because they do, indeed, identify with them.
I call that nomenclature bullshit, from start to finish.
I don't see this position being upheld in the film.
Probably it was meant to at least end with it, but it failed when none of these characters really means to move out of such labels and find a true independent identity.
It's actually fascinating to watch you miss the point. It's like you're Working at opacity.
Here's the letter, read at the end:
"You see us as you want to see us... In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain...and an athlete...and a basket case...a princess...and a criminal..."
It's pretty simple. They see elements of Each Of Them in themselves. So your claim that "they start. . .then end back that way" is Exactly Wrong. It's utterly baffling how you watched the progression of this movie, and heard that literal quote, and completely misunderstood what happened. Fascinating. . .but baffling.
Bottom line: you're wrong. BTW, this is Far from a new discussion. Take a look at any examination of this film; you'll see countless examples discussing these simple facts.
To me is baffling that your OPINION is held as overwhelming proof.
I know what the ESSAY SAYS, and that clearly goes along with the intentions of the authors.
Do you know the differene between telling and showing?
What is shown is another thing alltogether, where the kids completely adhere and accept those labels, only to add a * at the end to pretend that yes, he's a brain, but he once got into trouble so he is also a bit of a criminal, or he's a criminal, but also.... etc.
So, like I'm exposing, the movie just adds a conclusive statement while instead the labels are always there and get slightly blurred, with no convinction nor real intention to reject them.
The Basket Case
share[deleted]