Hollywood, limitations, and potential
Mar. 24th, 2007 12:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisI just watched this movie called Jersey Girl. When the love interest was first introduced, I thought: Hey, this is kinda cool. A very liberated girl who talks about how she masturbates twice a day. This movie could work.
But now that I've gotten to the end, I'd like those hours of my life back. Dear goddess.
I am so sick of the American Hollywood machine making movies designed to send the following messages:
-sacrificing your dreams for love is the right thing to do
-sacrificing your dreams for family is the right thing to do
-you should be happy with a life doing a crappy low class job
The way I see it, this movie was very carefully crafted to appeal to the poor schmucks whose life truly consists entirely of family and a truly crappy job, and to make them feel righteous and self-satisfied, and COMFORTED about how crappy their lives are. Like the way they carefully insert a religious statue on the front lawn of the house, but the people in the movie otherwise live a secular life. Like the way the man in the movie is able to live the small-town family life while scoring the younger hot chick who has liberated sexual morals. Like the way he is given positive life affirmation for choosing his child's whim over what is best, overall, for both of them in the long run -- and thus the viewers are able to feel good about themselves because the main character's happy ending resembles their lives.
***
And now for the devil's advocate portion of this post.
I've been arguing, often lately, that one of the tragedies of our society is that we are taught that we can achieve anything. I believe that we cannot. That we all have our limitations, our strengths and weaknesses, and that we must find a lifestyle and profession that works well within that scope.
That's not to say that anyone should be telling you what that scope is -- we don't understand intelligence enough to be able to assess this. But if we could, I'd like to believe that we would see a society in which people would know their potential, and feel no shame about the limitations. That we would no longer be driving ourselves to nervous breakdowns trying to achieve the impossible, and feeling shame for not achieving what our peers have.
So I wonder. Are my issues conflicting? Do I need to reconcile these viewpoints?
They may conflict. But I think part of my issue with movies like Jersey Girl is that I feel like they are produced by the upper class to lull the lower classes into complacency while the upper class takes all. The opiate of the masses, as they say.
It's not that I think that all people should aspire to more than what they do, nor that I think that all people who do manual labour should be dissatisfied with their lives. The character in Jersey Girl clearly can handle the job in question, and was one of the best. He loved his work. He had some trouble balancing his home life with his family life, but that's something he could learn to handle. And when his wife died leaving him with a newborn baby to care for, he cracked. But that's no reflection on his ultimate potential and limitations. Telling him to give up on his dreams and a better life because his little girl didn't want to change schools is dumb.
But now that I've gotten to the end, I'd like those hours of my life back. Dear goddess.
I am so sick of the American Hollywood machine making movies designed to send the following messages:
-sacrificing your dreams for love is the right thing to do
-sacrificing your dreams for family is the right thing to do
-you should be happy with a life doing a crappy low class job
The way I see it, this movie was very carefully crafted to appeal to the poor schmucks whose life truly consists entirely of family and a truly crappy job, and to make them feel righteous and self-satisfied, and COMFORTED about how crappy their lives are. Like the way they carefully insert a religious statue on the front lawn of the house, but the people in the movie otherwise live a secular life. Like the way the man in the movie is able to live the small-town family life while scoring the younger hot chick who has liberated sexual morals. Like the way he is given positive life affirmation for choosing his child's whim over what is best, overall, for both of them in the long run -- and thus the viewers are able to feel good about themselves because the main character's happy ending resembles their lives.
***
And now for the devil's advocate portion of this post.
I've been arguing, often lately, that one of the tragedies of our society is that we are taught that we can achieve anything. I believe that we cannot. That we all have our limitations, our strengths and weaknesses, and that we must find a lifestyle and profession that works well within that scope.
That's not to say that anyone should be telling you what that scope is -- we don't understand intelligence enough to be able to assess this. But if we could, I'd like to believe that we would see a society in which people would know their potential, and feel no shame about the limitations. That we would no longer be driving ourselves to nervous breakdowns trying to achieve the impossible, and feeling shame for not achieving what our peers have.
So I wonder. Are my issues conflicting? Do I need to reconcile these viewpoints?
They may conflict. But I think part of my issue with movies like Jersey Girl is that I feel like they are produced by the upper class to lull the lower classes into complacency while the upper class takes all. The opiate of the masses, as they say.
It's not that I think that all people should aspire to more than what they do, nor that I think that all people who do manual labour should be dissatisfied with their lives. The character in Jersey Girl clearly can handle the job in question, and was one of the best. He loved his work. He had some trouble balancing his home life with his family life, but that's something he could learn to handle. And when his wife died leaving him with a newborn baby to care for, he cracked. But that's no reflection on his ultimate potential and limitations. Telling him to give up on his dreams and a better life because his little girl didn't want to change schools is dumb.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-24 06:56 am (UTC)I'm sorry, but while I see some of what you're saying, I think its based on a really false presumption that you're extrapolating poorly from. The characters in this, and indeed, in most Smith movies, wind up living the lives they do because Smith, staying in New Jersey, in his home town, despite his success, has kept himself pretty much living the life you think is complacent. He loves his life, he loves his friends, he loves the people who surround him. And so he shows people living it, in the case of Jersey Girl, reclaiming it (he's said that's partly based on his own reaction to fame, and a discovery that 'success' as pitched was really not what made him happy; that at heart, before his art and movies, he wants and needs to put his family).
It might not be the solution for me, or for you. But it was for Smith, and that led to Jersey Girl.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-24 07:28 am (UTC)But (1) You're assuming that what he says, the persona he presents, is actually genuine, and (2) if what you say is so, then the movie does a VERY poor job of conveying his experience.
Kevin Smith continues to have a career, he just manages it so that he can live his 'simple life' in Jersey. A more appropriate conveyance of the story would be the main character finding a way to do work similar to what he originally loved, in Jersey. He could have started doing PR for public works, for instance. That would have been a natural evolution.
Quite frankly, the plot as presented is ludicrous.
Kevin Smith
Date: 2007-03-24 08:34 am (UTC)There is definitely a tendency to paint idealistic pictures in most movies I think tho. And the ideal we're raised to is the so-called "American Dream", so it's no surprise that's the format many story-lines take. In a way, the concept that "Jersey's ok" and that you don't need to have the huge, expensive life to be happy is really a departure from the standard conventions.
And yeah, most people *are* stuck in the crappy, dead-end job. I think the idea that you can live the way you want (loose morals & all) without moving to the big city is its own kind of idealism. It repeats in most of his movies: the characters aren't some microcosm for human society, they're just living out their lives, in Jersey, because that's where Kevin Smith's from, and he figures you might as well write what you know.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-24 01:02 pm (UTC)The trick I think isn't in whether or not we can achieve them but at what cost we're willing to pay.
I could go back to school and earn a great degree but it might cost me in relationships, finances, and time. So far, I've been unwilling to pay that penalty.
So I believe it's up to everybody to decide what that point is - the line you draw between what you really want to do and what you're willing to pay for it.
In some cases that may mean that you have a "crappy" life but the alternative may be no better in the long run.
That's my two coppers.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-24 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-25 03:18 am (UTC)I've been arguing, often lately, that one of the tragedies of our society is that we are taught that we can achieve anything.
I remember a comedian talking about this, he says "As a kid I was always told I could be anything I wanted when I was older. They lied. I wanted to be a Jeep."
no subject
Date: 2007-03-25 11:09 pm (UTC)I'll first say that the point wasn't "give up your dreams because your daughter wants to stay in her schools."
The point is that Ollie, even after 7 years of being a single parent, was still a selfish dickhead who didn't consider the life he'd been living as "good enough" (or even really valid, he's in denial about the fact that it's his life now, it's just a temporary limbo for him). There he is, dreaming about the future and the city, and he's *completely missing* the good stuff he has in front of him.
For me, it's about learning to love what you have; not necessarily killing your dreams, but perhaps re-prioritizing. 7 years after being newly married, Ollie still had the same priorities -- be a high-powered PR big wig. Meanwhile, his wife died, he helped raise his daughter, and he moved in with his dad. How can someone's life shift like that, and yet the priorities stay exactly the same? It's not healthy...not for him, and not for Gertie (the daughter, not the dead wife).
As an adult I fully understand the need to be a person independent of your own children, and to have accomplishments that involve words other than "my child". However, having a child means changing A LOT in your life. Mostly you spend lots of time child-rearing, and you still only have 24 hours in the day, so other things you did have to be put aside.
I don't see that as "you have to kill your dreams to have children". I see that as "you're making a decision and you're going to have to commit to that" -- if Maya had to quash her dreams while in school, would you be as upset? No, because it's obvious that school takes up a lot of time, and that she chose to be in school.
I like how Maya tries to convince Ollie to stay, because his life *is* good enough -- and then comments as to how she's leaving as soon as she gets her degree. I think that's really the monumental scene there.
John Mayer's song "No Such Thing" has the following lyric in it:
"And all of our parents / They're getting older
I wonder if they've wished for anything better
While in their memories /Tiny tragedies"
He wrote that in his teens, and it reflects a young way of thinking. That way of thinking is that the dreams of youth -- being the top, best, famous, rich, whatever -- is the only way to lead a fulfilling life. That's the same attitude I see in Ollie.
I think the point of the movie, for me, is that it's OK to change what your dream is.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-25 11:45 pm (UTC)I am so sick of the American Hollywood machine making movies designed to send the following messages:
-sacrificing your dreams for love is the right thing to do
-sacrificing your dreams for family is the right thing to do
-you should be happy with a life doing a crappy low class job
Mostly I saw the movie as a comforting change. I see many Hollywood movies as sending the message that the only "good" life is one where you're rich, famous, in an "exciting" job, etc. I grew up in north Jersey, and I couldn't wait to get out of the suburbs.
I think Hollywood should be focusing more on these messages:
-sacrificing your dreams for love is OK if you're making that decision consciously.
-you can change your dreams from your younger days, where you thirst for excitement. "Having a stable and happy home life where I can pay all the bills, work hard enough to be appreciated and respected at work but still be able to come home and enjoy my family" is a damn fine dream. And there's no reason you need to put your dreams away; simply aside for a bit, whether it's for 4 years in college, 10 years in grad and post-graduate school, or 18 years, until your kid leaves home.
-you *can* be happy doing a "non-exciting" job
The way I see it, this movie was very carefully crafted to appeal to the poor schmucks whose life truly consists entirely of family and a truly crappy job, and to make them feel righteous and self-satisfied, and COMFORTED about how crappy their lives are.
I saw this movie as a nice portrait of reality. What's so *wrong* with a life consisting of family and what you call a "truly crappy job"? Sure, the job is dirty, but what would life be like without someone to pick up the garbage, or maintain sewers? Are you saying that any garbageman (or woman) that is happy is lying to themselves?
(also, have you noticed that many of the occupations that are exciting to young children are those that are low-paying and lower-class? Construction workers, garbage workers, teachers, fire & police workers, train engineers...)
Like the way they carefully insert a religious statue on the front lawn of the house, but the people in the movie otherwise live a secular life.
See, I thought this was true to reality. Firstly, there are many many people who have a Mary on the half shell in front of their homes, or wear a cross around their neck, who aren't very religious. Also, are you assuming the grandfather owns the house? I've rented out houses from people who insist their Mary/Jesus on the half shell remain on the lawn even though the owners don't live there, and none of the people living there really want it there.
Like the way the man in the movie is able to live the small-town family life while scoring the younger hot chick who has liberated sexual morals.
Um....As I recall, the chick scored him, not the other way around. And that was part of the whole "Ollie's not really being a good dad, because all he's thinking about is himself" theme.
Like the way he is given positive life affirmation for choosing his child's whim over what is best, overall, for both of them in the long run -- and thus the viewers are able to feel good about themselves because the main character's happy ending resembles their lives.
His child's "whim" isn't a whim -- she wants to be with what she knows, and who she knows. Young children in general cling to the familiar. But even getting past that, had you said "desire" instead of "whim" -- the whole point was saying, "wake up you douchebag, you've got a great life here, why are you looking for greener grass somewhere else?" Ollie was totally invalidating the goodness that Gertie saw all around her, because of his own selfish desires.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-25 11:45 pm (UTC)I've been arguing, often lately, that one of the tragedies of our society is that we are taught that we can achieve anything. I believe that we cannot. That we all have our limitations, our strengths and weaknesses, and that we must find a lifestyle and profession that works well within that scope.
I feel similarly, though not exactly. I think it's wonderful to teach people that they should try to achieve their dreams. However, I think the tragedy lies in what is seen as achievement. Somehow, having $20k in credit card debt but a really nice car is achievement. Not too long ago, feeding your family, keeping a clean house, and not being the town drunk/idiot/whatever was achievement. I feel that if anything, life has gotten more difficult since then...some days, it's all I can do to be proud of myself that I took care of my daily needs, while taking care of shorter and longer term ones (ie, making money to go food shopping, to save for short-term things like the wedding, and for the longer term ones like having over USD$30k in retirement funds even though I'm not yet 30).
And my question is, "why isn't that a great accomplishment?" How many 28-year-olds can pay all their bills, save 10% pay for retirement, save another 8% in cash, have health insurance, all while supporting their partner? And yes, that means paying all the rent, 2 sets of student loans, etc. (well, Tony got a part-time job in November, so that $$ helps, but it's less than 1/4 of what I'm making, and I supported him for 18 months while he was working on his art)
At the end of the day, that's all amazing. I feel like I'm more of a superhero on my more mundane days. We're probably agreeing vehemently, though, because you agree that you'd like to see a world where "we would no longer be driving ourselves to nervous breakdowns trying to achieve the impossible, and feeling shame for not achieving what our peers have."
(thought I'd change it to "what we think our peers have")
They may conflict. But I think part of my issue with movies like Jersey Girl is that I feel like they are produced by the upper class to lull the lower classes into complacency while the upper class takes all. The opiate of the masses, as they say.
I'm curious as to why you feel that way. I feel like this was specifically produced to send a message of "slow down, it's OK, you can be fulfilled" to the upper class.
While I agree that Ollie could be a PR agent again, for me the movie is about taking responsibility for your actions, whether or not they were planned, and whether or not the outcome was planned. Ollie and Gertie (his wife) had a plan for who was going to take care of the baby, at least at first, and that plan fell through. Sure, there's shock and grief to explain why he was back at work so soon, but at some point Ollie needed to reassess his life goals. I think that "single parent AND bigwig PR guy" *is* more than Ollie can handle. And it's more than he *wants* to handle.
Because really at the end of the day, being a garbageman is wonderful. You rarely have to stay late at the office nor take paperwork home with you. After a shower, you can sit on the floor and play with your kid.
Ollie became limited because situation changed. He made a career-limiting move in his job. No matter how capable he is, he can't get a job because of that one mistake. So technically he's NOT capable of it -- he is from a theoretical perspective, but it would not happen in practice.
And that's another great thing about the movie. To make this point, I'm going to go to a movie I didn't like -- Good Will Hunting. Now, that is a movie where I see Matt Damon as giving up what he was doing "for the girl". But there's a HUGE difference between giving up what you HAVE for what COULD BE (as in Good Will Hunting), and giving up what COULD BE for what you HAVE.
Anyway, I've been verbose....