Last week, Aimee and I saw Avatar in 3D. While I was impressed with the visual display, I felt the archetypal portrayal of the hero's quest was heavy-handed. I agree with some of the dissenting voices regarding the neocolonialist perspective of the overall message even though we see an indigenous culture overcoming the evils of militarism, imperialism, and colonialism. On one hand, I find it admirable that the Jake Sully character finds redemption in his avatar, giving up his human form. On the other hand, I find it disturbing that a white character becomes the messianic figure of a pre-industrial race, largely portrayed by African American and Native American actors, that leads the people to victory. What is the subtext? The archetypal figures were fraught with hyperbole, becoming grotesque caricatures. Even the portrayal of the antagonist, Colonel Miles Quaritch, is flat. There is no complexity to his character. There is no subtlety to the gradations of right and wrong. Or, the character is good, or evil. Having said that, the intellectual in me hardly had time to breathe during the movie. It was visually spectacular.
That same weekend, Aimee and I watched My Fair Lady over two nights. I had never seen it before. Henry Higgins was a jerk. (The Wikipedia article describes him as an "arrogant, irascible, misogynistic professor of phonetics.") He does not change at all over the course of the film. He only realizes that he's grown accustomed to Eliza's presence after she blows up at him and bruises his ego. Why she returns to his home, I cannot understand. Even then, he hides his delight by blurting out, "Where the devil are my slippers?"
Oh, it's my birthday today. 32. This last year has been a good one. I'm hoping this next year will be even better.
That same weekend, Aimee and I watched My Fair Lady over two nights. I had never seen it before. Henry Higgins was a jerk. (The Wikipedia article describes him as an "arrogant, irascible, misogynistic professor of phonetics.") He does not change at all over the course of the film. He only realizes that he's grown accustomed to Eliza's presence after she blows up at him and bruises his ego. Why she returns to his home, I cannot understand. Even then, he hides his delight by blurting out, "Where the devil are my slippers?"
Oh, it's my birthday today. 32. This last year has been a good one. I'm hoping this next year will be even better.
5 comments:
Have you been working on your dissertation again?
Parabéns.
She returns to him because of his abusive hold on her? In the actual novel she returns to Freddy. Much more satisfying.
I'm so glad to see here that she returns to Freddy in the Novel. May I ask a question? What kind of arrogance makes Hollywood think that they can tell a story better than the originator of the idea? I just watched "James and the Giant Peach" with the kids after reading the story. disguisting. Dahl had it right, hollywood screwed it up.
It wasn't Hollywood arrogance, it was the 1950s Broadway adaption that changed the Pygmalion plot (1913). I think it shows more for what the mentality was in the 1950s than anything.
Also, here's some fun "rain in Spain" from around the world.
La lluvia en Sevilla es una pura maravilla
I have always found "My Fair Lady" disturbing, and it disturbs me that folks continue to produce it. It's all about co-dependency.
Post a Comment