this sounds depressing but i will def watch it when it comes to netflix or whatever bc i love to have an opinion lol. sidebar: people hated winona in age of innocence but i thought she was perfect in that role! that book is one of my all time faves. are you an edith wharton person?
hmmm loved reading your thoughts on this even though I think I disagree a bit - your conclusion that "Song is saying you still need a man. Not for money. Not for love. For protection." is true but I think in my read its less Song saying that and more just depicting the truth that to these middle/upper class white NY women that is the case. IDK i'm definitely still ruminating on it but I enjoyed how honest and frank the film was in its portrayal of this one specific imagining of marriage that is inherently flawed!! I do wonder who Song is imagining as the viewer - if she's envisioning people in this group to see it and maybe have the realization oh this is kinda odd.. maybe i should have people outside of marriage... at the end of the day its a movie that did make me think a lot and as you mention I would always rather that than a movie with no questions whatsoever
I agree this was very much a depiction of a slice of a certain type of people (people Song herself has worked with!) and is almost anthropological in that way. I think I was mostly so frustrated by where I hoped the movie would go and it's incredible potential to really articulate a different way of thinking about relationships. But, again, I agree with you that that's not realistic to this set of people and that Song's vision was to give realism, not idealism.
I'm not sure if I'm shoehorning your point into the book I'm currently reading, or if the book is just that broadly applicable...either way:
When you write "Materialists lets its protagonist choose her partner the same way one might pick a wedding dress: based on some vague internal click that cannot be, and is not, questioned." I'm reminded of Agnes Callard's idea of Untimely Questions - questions that we don't allow ourselves to ask ourselves, because we're actively using the answer. Seems like a lot of current power structures depend on this to remain in place, because to question the structure that is oppressing you is to open yourself up to being punished by that structure.
Women's need for a man's protection is one of patriarchy's most powerful and disguised double edge weapon
this sounds depressing but i will def watch it when it comes to netflix or whatever bc i love to have an opinion lol. sidebar: people hated winona in age of innocence but i thought she was perfect in that role! that book is one of my all time faves. are you an edith wharton person?
YES! I wrote my undergrad thesis on the cult of celebrity in her novels. I love Winona in that movie--the way she foils Michelle Pfieffer is perfect!
oh that's really cool
hmmm loved reading your thoughts on this even though I think I disagree a bit - your conclusion that "Song is saying you still need a man. Not for money. Not for love. For protection." is true but I think in my read its less Song saying that and more just depicting the truth that to these middle/upper class white NY women that is the case. IDK i'm definitely still ruminating on it but I enjoyed how honest and frank the film was in its portrayal of this one specific imagining of marriage that is inherently flawed!! I do wonder who Song is imagining as the viewer - if she's envisioning people in this group to see it and maybe have the realization oh this is kinda odd.. maybe i should have people outside of marriage... at the end of the day its a movie that did make me think a lot and as you mention I would always rather that than a movie with no questions whatsoever
I agree this was very much a depiction of a slice of a certain type of people (people Song herself has worked with!) and is almost anthropological in that way. I think I was mostly so frustrated by where I hoped the movie would go and it's incredible potential to really articulate a different way of thinking about relationships. But, again, I agree with you that that's not realistic to this set of people and that Song's vision was to give realism, not idealism.
It's chilling that after a sexual assault a character's next thought is about needing a man.
On many levels, it seemed clueless.
I'm not sure if I'm shoehorning your point into the book I'm currently reading, or if the book is just that broadly applicable...either way:
When you write "Materialists lets its protagonist choose her partner the same way one might pick a wedding dress: based on some vague internal click that cannot be, and is not, questioned." I'm reminded of Agnes Callard's idea of Untimely Questions - questions that we don't allow ourselves to ask ourselves, because we're actively using the answer. Seems like a lot of current power structures depend on this to remain in place, because to question the structure that is oppressing you is to open yourself up to being punished by that structure.