At 11:40 -0000 09.02.99, John Daigle wrote:
> >
> >I don't really see "feelbad" as american as it is middle-class suburban.
> >
> >David d'Heilly
>
> I hate to interject, but I do virulently disagree with this statement.

Thanks for interjecting, John.

> First, becuase the vast majority of Americans are monetarily in the middle
> class:

The majority of people in all developed nations are monetarily in the
middle class. It's a given. And I was trying to suggest that it is not
something limited to the americans, by saying "middle-class suburban." And
yet you object to the phrase "middle-class." It is in common currency in
the english language. Or are you suggesting that this a completely
meaningless statement that should be done away with? My assertion was that
there is a certain stable sector of society (maybe second or third
generation in the same national income percentile) whose kids are either
getting a "rush" from feel-bad stuff, or pinching themselves with it to see
if they're awake. (Some people don't need to be pinched. They're not bored
in the first place.) What I should have said was "upper middle class,"
perhaps to assure the decadence that I wanted. The absolute middle is
probably working too hard for such frivolities.

> second, becuase the class "system" as such is actually based on
> transportation and parking, not where you live (if you own your own
> business, house, car, and garage, but only make 30 or 40 grand a year,
> you're a first class citizen who has fulfilled the "American Dream");

I don't quite understand your statement. Is it that suburbia means nothing
more than access to parking? Or that owning your own car and home, on land
instead of living in a city highrise or tenament, having a stable job that
allows commuting, having kids that you need to place in a certain level of
school, or being one of those families that have been based at the offramps
to very expensive highway projects for the past 40 years versus those who
haven't is unrelated to class... or just that even if you've got all of
that you still don't feel middle, or...?
To my mind, Americans are the least "rooted" people of any modern developed
nation. They are more adept at moving for work than most europeans, at
least. Things like "mall culture," etc. are related to suburbia, and a
middle-class who goes there. I think that america is not as abstract at you
assert. Do you really refute that there is a basis for identifying a
"suburban (upper?) middle-class" culture?

> third, becuase this statement is essentially Audience Analysis, making
> assumptions about who likes or dislikes a particular kind of film based on
> an artificial concept of "class" imported from feudal society;

Hmmmm. To my knowledge, "Audience Analysis" doesn't go back to feudalism.
(maybe manoralism?) But maybe what you mean is that we should back down
from the "c" (class) word. OK. Maybe we're just so gosh darned modern that
things like class no longer apply in these here United States of America.
Karl would be proud. But still, what do we call a strata of society which
manages to serve a consistent function over several generations? "Those
guys?" Calling them a market is a bit too anti-historical for me. Maybe I
should have gotten my wording approved by the Hegelian midwife and
wordsmythe guild, but I just let my tongue go wild sometimes, you know? Got
any suggestions on a better word?

> and finally
> becuase a lot of the people I know who aren't in the middle or upper
> classes by any definition hate and fear films that lie to them by telling
> them that everything is going to work out just fine in the end.

I think that we're kind of missing each other again. Most people, ages 2
and up dislike being lied to. Whether they "hate and fear" films or not is
another issue, which we might make into another communique. For the
purposes of this one, "feel-bad" films are not meant to be social realism.
They are not trying to tell the truth about things working out one way or
another. They are an exercise in being yukky. It's an aesthetics thing.
This can mean, in some cases, peurile abandon, something like boys chasing
girls around the playground with frogs, (or girls chasing boys around
threatening to kiss them) or it can mean giving people a real bad trip,
intentionally, whether as a "spread the paranoia" mission, or as an
exploration into a scintillating "forbidden palatte." The former doesn't
really warrant discussion -- do it or don't -- the latter can be discussed,
and there are many terms for doing so. This is what I was trying to
suggest.

> Just one man's opinion. Not terribly relevant, I suppose.

??? I still don't get the "virulent" part ???

yours, david


*******

"Either that wallpaper goes, or I do" - the dying words of Oscar Wilde




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%