Heroic Condescension

I finally got around to watching Woman of the Year, which had been sitting on my coffee table for weeks. Sure enough, it was just as disappointing and irritating as I thought it was. I was thinking of Adam's Rib when I put it on my Netflix queue, then realized that this was the one with the awful kitchen scene with Katharine Hepburn in funky suspenders.

I guess it was the 1940s and I shouldn't be surprised, but the utter hypocrisy of the movie is still galling. Create a fabulously talented woman, one with an important job who is well recognized and influential on a national and international level. Have her meet Ordinary Joe, who introduces her to the common pleasure of baseball. Turns out they like each other, despite early friction. BUT... they get married, and it turns out she isn't going to stop being busy and important. This is not a good thing. This is a very bad thing. Joe feels neglected and leaves abruptly with a dramatic passive-agressive gesture. She's confused and hurt, but decides to muddle through it. Then she witnesses another marriage ceremony and decides to try again. She tries to show she's willing to change by making breakfast. But she can't. She fails. He forgives her for not being a good cook and tells her he just wants her to be his wife, she doesn't even have to quit her job. Then he randomly assaults her assistant (an effeminate male) because he brings in an inconvenient reminder of her responsibilities as a influential and famous person. Husband kisses wife and all is well.

Except that this mutual repentance is not exactly on the same level. Husband is heroic for acknowledging that it is ok for her to be successful, as long as it doesn't get in his way. He proves his masculinity by violently removing an example of her independence and power. Wife is heroic for being willing to sacrifice her entire career and learn how to be a proper woman. She is humbled for not being sufficiently feminine because she confused a couple ingredients in a recipe. She will be allowed to continue her career because he loves her and holds veto power over her. That is a successful marriage.

In a state of intense irritation I came upstairs. Trying to express all of the ridiculous evilness of such a plot being perpetrated on a woman like Katharine Hepburn, I began an even more irritating conversation with Hermano #2. I maintain that this plot, which may have been understandable in 1942, is still being perpetrated today, lending legitimacy to an attitude that should be obviously idiotic to anyone. They are still plots about men who can't take it when their women become successful and the men are still portrayed as making some heroic character development when they are able to reconcile themselves to that success. I maintained that it is pathetic to resent the success of someone you love when you admire their talent.

Losing a pathetically misogynistic and selfish attitude is in no way, shape or form heroic. Hermano #1 agreed, but Hermano #2 felt it necessary to insist that this was a "big" step for some guys and an important issue to their relationships, so it should be covered in movies, though of course he doesn't feel that way himself. He's dense, sez I.

I said the recent Stepford Wives with Mathew Broderick and Nicole Kidman used almost the exact same plot and really didn't end up very far apart. The choice of those two actors was already an indication of the power dynamic in the relationship, and sure enough the husband is again resentful and insecure and needs to make dramatic passive-agressive gestures to regain his sense of confidence and control. The purported moral of the story is again equality in marriage, but again the husband is somehow supposed to make an "equal" stride towards this reconciliation simply by being willing to not control his wife and enjoy her talent, while she needs to humble herself and acknowledge all kinds of errors in her ways. At least there is no humiliating kitchen scene for Nicole Kidman, though I think there was something of the sort for Bette Midler. This time the villain (spoiler) is a woman, who perpetrates nasty stereotypes onto other women and empowers nasty patriarchal control forms. Ok, fine, whatever. Women are nasty too and do nasty things to each other. No duh, but as a conclusion isn't it just a way out of dealing with the nastiness of the husband's earlier position?

Gah! On the other hand, I guess Fever Pitch is a good example of this plot being remade with a far more reasonable depiction of what committment actually involves. The guy is Mr. Traditional Family Values in a more well-rounded way and the woman's success isn't resented on its own as much, though I still think they try to undermine it more than the do his side. The guy still gets to come out with fewer sacrifices, but at least (spoiler) he's the one offering to give it all up and she's the one stopping him. Sports are still portrayed as far more important than I think is at all reasonable, but the unreasonableness of it all is at least given sufficient screen time. We all have unpredictable obsessions and we have to give up something in relationships. Nick Hornby will allow me to go to bed slightly less pissed off. :)

Impromptu

Sand's fabulous deep voice and aggressive sexiness is very appealing, but I don't want to be a man-eater. Emma Thompson looks like she's having a lot more fun and she's still sexy even when she's acting a complete zany. Emma Thompson is the only actress I can think of that could inspire me to write rhapsodical fan letters.

Pragmatic Christianity

"All that is not eternal is eternally useless"
- attributed to C.S. Lewis

Having grown up in a conservative evangelical world, I am quite familiar with the idea that human souls and their eternal fate must be the first priority for any Christian. But we aren't eternal. No one is eternal but God, according to Christian orthodoxy.

But that would mean all of God's creation is entirely useless. Not just humanly created things like food and literature and technology and politics, but everything that is listed in the first few chapters of Genesis - galaxies and forests, birds, fish, mountains. Human societies in all of their complexity and groups that fight back against physical and social injustices are also useless.

The funny thing is I didn't run into this in my pastor's trite regurgitation of standard gnostic heresy last Sunday (though that was annoying). I heard it from a distinguished alumna who was speaking to us about finding "purpose" in our jobs. How can I find purpose in my life if only the "eternal" has meaning? Why was I created with eyes and ears and tongue if everything I encounter through them is "useless"? Why should "use" matter so much?

This narrow pragmatism of evangelicalism stunts any interaction with the world - art is useless, learning is useless, conversation (unless "spiritual") is useless. I know this reductionism is hardly compatible with Lewis' grand vision of eternal redemption in The Weight of Glory or The Great Divorce. But if even Lewis was frequently tempted away from such a beautifully redemptive vision to simplistic gnosticism, is it any wonder the rest of us have a hard time stretching the boundaries of our faith?