Jane Austen is much more than just couples getting together, spliting, sharing passion or not. All social context was evacuated, the depth of her novels reduced to some soap-opera level. Other problem is the omnipresent misandry: anytime a guy opens his mouth, the girls rolls their eyes, treats them like kids. Guys are cowards, immature, cheaters. The most ridiculous moment in the movie is when Prudie asks her husband to read, just to have someting in common with him - watch a game with him, or wash his car if you are so desperate to share things with him! And the guy changes drastically - give me a break, how stupid it is! I've waisted my time - though I like Jane Austen's novels, but this was just plain silly.
sobmtl, who probably hangs out at soc.men wrote: <<Jane Austen is much more than just couples getting together, spliting, sharing passion or not. All social context was evacuated, the depth of her novels reduced to some soap-opera level.>>
This is a film about the people in a book club. I don't know why you think it affected Jane Austen's novels at all.
sobtml wrote: <<Other problem is the omnipresent misandry: anytime a guy opens his mouth, the girls rolls their eyes, treats them like kids.>>
Please. At first the women make gentle fun of Grigg's ignorance, at the end, Jocelyn is learning from HIM, learning about great books from Grigg. He's a great male character.
sobtml wrote: <<Guys are cowards, immature, cheaters.>>
Grigg. Grigg, Grigg, Grigg. And did you notice some of the women aren't so great? Allegra's evil girlfriend, for example? Prudie's mother? Even Prudie herself walks a very fine line, but ultimately stays on the right side. The women and men are both flawed, both human.
sobtml wrote: <<The most ridiculous moment in the movie is when Prudie asks her husband to read, just to have someting in common with him - watch a game with him, or wash his car if you are so desperate to share things with him!>>
Why does she have to do what he likes to share things with him? Why is only that valid? Prudie wants her husband to know HER -- nothing wrong with that.
sobtml wrote: <<And the guy changes drastically - give me a break, how stupid it is! I've waisted my time - though I like Jane Austen's novels, but this was just plain silly. >>
I don't think you have read Jane Austen's novels. You sure didn't understand this pretty simple, fun film. You are laboring under the delusion that all the women are great and the men are horrible and that is just not the case. That's pretty clear if you look at it objectively -- but you can't. I am sure you see misandry everywhere you look.
Yeah, I found the anti-male tone of this movie annoying as well. While the female characters weren't exactly imaginatively drawn, the male characters were straight-on cardboard cutouts of every woman's love-to-hate man. And please stop saying Grigg Grigg Grigg. Don't you get it? He was intended to be a male fantasy figure -- a woman's idealized version of the perfectly sensitive, age-appropriate, handsome, passionate man. While the most sympathetic of the male characters, he was without a doubt the most cliched of the lot.
And SIX romantic quandaries resolved in the final five minutes? That's gotta be some kind of world record.
And in the end, the patriarchy wins, as always in JA novels. Marriage is the scourge of the earth really, a tool developed by religious males to secure the services of a womb. Females have historically been kept downtrodden in other to have no other choice than to marry to survive.
It's one thing for JA to portray this patriarchy in her books, those were her times... But to portray such marriage propaganda in 2007 is absolutely beyond belief for me.
So the females may roll their eyes some throughout, but in the end, patriarchy wins... as always with JA stories.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Marriage is the scourge of the earth really, a tool developed by religious males to secure the services of a womb. Females have historically been kept downtrodden in other to have no other choice than to marry to survive.
Wow. This just in... Marriage has been evolving for thousands of years, and continues to, fortunately. It has been — and still is — seen in myriad permutations. When we were all hunter/gatherers, it probably worked pretty well, as women who were quite pregnant or moms of little ones had their sustenance needs met while attending to the essential home needs, including the gathering of critical foods, and oh yeah, possibly inventing such things as agriculture. Patriarchy has messed things up rather sadly, but many of us are emerging from that in splendid ways. Those too fearful to let go of it will keep fighting healthy changes, but, one foot in front of the other, forward...
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO
There is no evidence that dads sold their daughters to other males in hunter-gatherer societies... Furthermore... dads didn't even know the concept of "dad". There is also no antropological evidence of dads selling their daughters to other males previous to patriarchal organisation of society... such as evidenced in Middle Eastern societies. Marriage is a patriarchal institution, and the world will be a better place when love is freely exercised instead of legislated and contractual.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Say what? I don't recall saying anything in my post about anyone selling anyone else. My point was that those who step away from the patriarchal model are happily setting up their own rules for their marriages, both formally and informally. I'm a bit puzzled why you responded to my post the way you did.
I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO
and the world will be a better place when love is freely exercised instead of legislated and contractual.
Love and marriage are two different things, by definition. I would only be married to someone I loved, but you have to admit that love and marriage are two different concepts.