Another Oscars ceremony has come and gone. I haven’t seen many of the movies, other than Vicki Christina, which I was happy Penelope Cruz won Best Supporting for her work in, because she was awesome; and WALL-E, which was great. And I was glad Winslet won, because, although I’m sure The Reader is just as bad as everyone says it is, she is one of my favorite actors and I think she’s a great role model for young women.
I have not seen Slumdog Millionaire, but everyone seems to have a strong opinion about it. Most of the people I know who’ve seen it really loved it, and I’m sure it’s great and all, but of course, like anything involving depictions of the “real” India by non-Indians and/or of the lives of the “real” poor by the wealthy, many people have their quarrels with the authenticity of it.
Again, I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure I’d probably agree with this post, which discusses the fact that the celebrated salvation from desperate poverty has to come from without, a financial deus ex machina, and that the female lead is a helpless battered woman who can do nothing for herself until some other man falls in love with her and saves her. In how many movies do we see this? And how many of these female characters are Asian? You’d almost think men have an unrealistic porny fantasy about “rescuing” battered, dependent, passive beauties from developing countries. Undoubtedly, these bruised and delicate flowers would know how to appreciate a good, loving master husband, unlike spoiled, bitchy feminists with their own money and their self-sufficiency.
Of course, being that the male lead in this particular movie is a young man from the Mumbai slums, I’m digressing a bit. Ahem. Where were we?
Oh, yes. Slumdog. Still, people are happy that the movie won because it’s so long been the boring standard that in America, any movie about people other than white Americans are niche films . . . unless, that is, they primarily focus on the way in which people other than white Americans affect white Americans. Which brings me to Gran Torino. Apparently, conservatives are pissed that Gran Torino didn’t get recognized and Milk did. Since, you know, Milk is about the rights of a group of people conservatives haven’t yet adjusted their prejudice about, and Gran Torino is about an old white dude and how he feels about some Vietnamese people he has to deal with. Now, a movie about Vietnamese gangs would be of no interest to these same people. That would be a niche film, of interest only to Vietnamese gangs and the liberals who care about them. But a movie about how an old white dude is affected by Vietnamese gangs…now that’s a movie that “everyone” can relate to! Especially when the old white dude is a Christian With Faith, and uses his Legal Gun of Righteousness to save the Vietnamese folk what can’t save themselves, and teaches them how to be more like old white dudes, before he finally drops dead in an oh-so-subtle crucifixion pose (which, so far as I can tell from the Wikipedia entry, is what happens in Gran Torino – I haven’t seen it, or Milk).
I have a very good friend, who is much smarter and more socially conscious than I am, and who has the irritating habit of ruining everything for me by pointing out a totally obvious bit of ridiculousness in some area of the culture that I’d been to thick to spot myself, and it was she who alerted me to this obnoxious habit of Hollywood being more interested in the ways in which racism and prejudice affects old white dudes than in the lives of black people, or immigrants, or anybody else. Now that she’s pointed it out, I see it everywhere. We’ve had Monster’s Ball, Crash, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, so on and so forth, and (as she put it) is it really so endlessly fascinating how old white bigots learn to open their minds? Isn’t there ever going to be a day when we can stop talking primarily to them and making movies about their experiences and trying to understand them and teach them to be better . . . and instead just ignore them until they go away? Are old white bigots really so relevant anymore? Isn’t it time to move on from all that?
Which is what I say in response to this post, in which James Bowman says:
Though in principle it is a good thing to seek a break with the past and the hardened positions on both sides, those positions are the result of the Penn-like tactic of characterizing those on the other side not just as wrong or mistaken but as reactionary in the commie sense – that is, as barriers to inevitable progress who must be removed. If you’re one of the barriers, you may be excused for finding that a somewhat chilling prospect. You have been identified as being, in practice if not in name, evil – that is beyond the bounds of decency and not to be recognized as legitimate in your views by anyone who is decent.
But see, that’s the thing: opponents of gay rights are barriers to inevitable progress who must be removed. Because there are actual gay families who are actually very much affected by conservatives’ slow, resistant refusal to see them as legitimate, and these families need not carefully consider those people who still oppose their rights. They need not try to see it from their side, or come to a compromise, or “respect” their point of view. Gay people simply want to live their lives the way they see fit without going a-begging to people who disapprove of them on every level.
Gay people will get equal rights eventually. And frankly, if that idea chaps your ass for some reason, you should probably get used to being the bad guy.
That said, I’m no fan of Sean Penn. I think he’s a good actor and enjoy his movies, but, as with most celebrities, I assume he an unintelligent, self-absorbed, entitled asshat, and I have absolutely no desire to know him as a person. And also, didn’t Sean Penn beat up Madonna a few times? Celebrity or no, any man who hits his wife should be in jail or in traction, but not in the spotlight, so I’m disappointed to see positive buzz about Penn on one of my favorite feminist sites. And the idea that anyone ever arrested for domestic assault could righteously preach to others about morality…well, only a celebrity would have the balls for that.
