I totally disagree with the idea that it is someway
justified to deride any successful hollywood movie. I
thinkn this view is offensive to the audience. It is
just saying all people are stupid idiots and the more
people go and see the film the stupider it must be. I
think the call for a serious  critique was totally
necessary especially taken the tone of the initial
rather aggressive mail. Why do men who seek to forward
a feminist argument do so with such testosterone? I
agree with some of the issues of stereotyping. And I
don't think the film perfect but I think that the film
was playing with notions of farce especailly at the
conclusion and farce always deals with cartoonish
characters boldly drawn.

I must go and teach I'll try and come back on some
more when I've finished. And what was Blue Velvet.
Ithought it sold loads.

best wishes 

John Bleasdale 



--- [log in to unmask] wrote: > While it may be just a
guttoral instinct to bring
> down something just 
> because it has been financially successful, I think
> that such an instinct 
> is not necessarily unjustified when it comes to
> popular Hollywood 
> productions.  The reasons for a Hollywood film's
> success are almost 
> invariably the same.  Besides the obvious role of
> marketing (even if 
> covered up through the sale of idealistic
> explanation "word of mouth"), 
> a Hollywood film finds financial success in
> reaffirmation of the status 
> quo.  Americans do not go to the movies to change
> their lives, but to be 
> told that their lives are as good as it gets.  And I
> do not think it is 
> really a narrow-mind generalization that any popular
> Hollywood film is so 
> because it is nonthreatening and non-vital.  Thus
> one cannot help but 
> immediately begin to question the foundation of a
> movie like "American 
> Beauty" which has 
> been sold as an artistic and daring work of the
> heart ("oh they deferred 
> their pay because they believed in the project").
> "Serious" (often 
> self-deluding) critical discussion notwithstanding,
> this movie has had a 
> large audience and has been popularly acclaimed. 
> One can then conclude 
> fairly safely that the film's "daring" and "art" and
> its purported 
> intentions did not succeed and probably were not
> really meant to (at 
> least not in the highest selfless aesthetic sense). 
> It is rather sad to 
> draw such pessimistic conclusions, but the rule of
> thumb is that any 
> successful Hollywood movie is not really honest or
> groundbreaking, no 
> matter what its publicity makes sure to say a
> thousand times.  And such is 
> the case with "American Beauty."  This film is a
> rather ugly sham.  
> 
> Additionally, I think that your call for 
> "serious critiques" appears to seek for you some 
> self-justification and disregards 
> the fact the attacks have been "serious" and not
> simply childish rants.  The 
> film's "courageous" portrayal of suburban life is
> only a Hollywood 
> attempt to cash in on what has by now become a whole
> genre of "suburban 
> angst" films, perhaps started by Lynch's "Blue
> Velvet," a film of much 
> more courage.  What "AB" does it to take advantage
> of already existing 
> codes of "suburban angst" that the suburban audience
> is by now prepared for.
> Thus the obvious use of stereotypes - impotent
> cubicled male,  cold
> careerist wife, virgin cheerleader, outsider youth. 
> These codes are safe 
> and not really disturbing and can be used to create
> a toothless melodrama.
> These are some really juvenile, spiritless people
> who need to find drama and 
> pathos in the "journey" of a character not to have
> sex with a virgin.  
> In fact, such a premise itself cries out Puritanical
> reaffirmation and 
> pornographic exploitation.  A really couragious film
> would have had 
> Lester pop the girl's cherry.  As it is, we can all
> feel good about 
> ourselves.
> 
> p.s. perhaps a more facetious topic of discussion,
> but nonetheless: what 
> about the use of that bag?  why has such a
> consumerist icon been chosen?  
> is the pseudo-zen babbling of the boy enforced or
> rejected by the boy's 
> violent actions?  
> 
> On 
> Wed, 17 May 2000, MEISSNER wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The discussions surrounding AMERICAN BEAUTY that
> have been on this list
> > lately (both the current one and the thread from
> several weeks ago) strike
> > me not as serious critiques of the film, but
> rather as attempts at
> > denigration based simply on the critical and
> financial success of the
> > film.
> > 
> > My sense is that it has become fashionable to
> attack films such as BEAUTY
> > because they have become mainstream successes and
> because they are easy
> > targets due to their mainstream success. The same
> phenomenon occurred a
> > couple of years ago (perhaps on this same list; I
> don't remember for sure)
> > after the release and success of Spielberg's
> SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
> > 
> > I happen to think that AMERICAN BEAUTY is a fine
> film, not without its
> > flaws, but hardly the unredeemed piece of fluff
> that it is being
> > characterized as in this current thread. I would
> rather see a substantive
> > discussion of the film's strengths and weaknesses
> than a superficial
> > condemnation of its supposed offenses.
> > 
> > How about, for example, comments on the film's
> portrayal of American
> > suburban life circa 2000? What about the stylistic
> elements of the famous
> > "dancing bag" sequence or the film's use of
> camcorder footage? Both lead
> > actors were nominated for (and Spacey won) acting
> Oscars; what
> > specifically rings either hollow or genuine
> (depending on your opinion)
> > about their performances? What about the whole
> "Lolita" issue?; how does
> > it compare/contrast with earlier such
> themes/performances? Director Sam
> > Mendes has compared BEAUTY with Billy Wilder films
> such as THE APARTMENT,
> > and said the Wilder's work served as a model for
> BEAUTY?; does this
> > comparison hold, and why or why not? (And how?)
> > 
> > This is merely a sampling of the kinds of
> substantive questions that could
> > be discussed regarding AMERICAN BEAUTY. If my
> sense that the film is being
> > denigrated due to its success is wrong, then
> detractors should offer
> > reasoned and detailed arguments for negative
> comments. I hope that one way
> > of another, the tone of the discussion changes
> regarding this or any other
> > film that is offered up for group examination.
> > 
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > CHRIS MEISSNER				
> > University of Kansas
> > Lawrence, KS
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/


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