![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarea
Thanks to those who left feedback on the 70-minute fic and offered up theories as to who "he" was. It's times like these when I'm able to appreciate the depth and variety of people's imaginations. Thank you for sharing that with me. I'll tell you this much: I had a specific "he" in mind when I wrote it, and characterized him in a way that made his identity unmistakable -- at least to me. Of course, our interpretations of the characters are all different, aren't they, so what's clear as crystal to me is clear as mud to someone else. <g> Anyway, I won't elaborate, as the theories that have been expounded have been really insightful, and super neat to read.
Okay, so. Saw Love Actually yesterday. I actually didn't love Love Actually. I liked it. Overall I'd give it a 7/8, but oh, I had issues.
Of what we were shown, I'd give the film a solid 8. I enjoyed what we got, and many of the stories were well told (though I wonder if it might have been improved had there been fewer storylines). I had some issues here and there (which I'll get into), but it was primarily what we didn't get that bumps this film down to a 7. What those things were:
1) Lack of a significant mix of minorities. Now, if you go through the movie, there were definitely minority figures. However, the whole of the film felt very white, and the most important/significant character roles were played by Caucasians. That could be said of so many films; why pick on this one for it? I suppose it's because there were so many storylines that it was unsavory to me that this slew of characters didn't have more meaningful interactions with minorities. Where were the Asians? I know there are Asians in England (see Bend It Like Beckham), and yes, they are even in the upper-middle class, which seemed to be the circle most of the characters inhabited. The black characters were sprinkled here and there, but again, none with any significant role. So the film -- given the variety of people involved -- felt very white in a way that, say, Curtis's other work Bridget Jones' Diary, didn't.
2) Lack of many varied kinds of love. Just like with the miniorities, if you looked for them, sure, they were there. But for the most part, the emphasis was on the romantic relationships. And again, because this is supposed to be a film about love, all kinds of love, it felt lopsided. Maybe I wouldn't even have a problem with this if it weren't touted by others -- and by the film itself -- as being about love in all its forms. And of the other love relationships that it shows, those are subplots to the romantic. For instance: You could talk about Hugh/Emma's brother/sister love, but that wasn't even really shown. He kept dodging her phone calls, and when he showed up at the school play, it wasn't out of love for her or his niece/nephew; it was out of love/lust for that caterer gal. Where was the parent/child love? Emma and her kids? Sure, it was there, peripherally, but that storyline was mostly about Emma/Alan. And there was only one story about friendship? What about grandparents? Uncles/aunts? Love of a pet? Cousins? In fact, friendship love was even undermined in the Keira Knightley storyline (in favor of romantic love), in which one guy goes behind his best friend's back in order to declare his love/attraction for the former's wife. Nice.
I suppose I felt that this was a bunch of little romantic comedies put into one big movie, and in general I'm not a fan of romantic comedies because I find them trite, without any depth, and always, always, they have easy resolutions. But that's not true of all of them, and I've enjoyed my share ... this one kind of straddled that line, erring on the side of "good." But because there were so many storylines, I didn't really feel like I really knew many of the characters all that well, and I definitely didn't really feel the love (even if I did cry -- but I cry pretty easily. I cried during As Good As It Gets and I despise that movie). Not like, say, the love between CeeCee and Hillary in Beaches.
3) Related to the above, I was disturbed by the lack of a homosexual relationship. Homosexuality was discussed, and the characters acted as though it was no big deal, but at the end of the day, there was no homosexual couple. WTF? This was glaring because there were so many romantic entanglements. Not one of them could have been homosexual, to again, round out the different types of love? That irritates me.
So those were the big things I found lacking from the film. Now here are the other problems I had:
4) The placement of women in mostly traditional roles. We had housewives, mothers, secretaries, maids, waitresses. Laura Linney was a writer, but her boss was a male. We don't know what Keira Knightley did for a living, but why should I have any faith that it was anything empowering? Her character is defined by the man she married and the man who loves her but shouldn't.
5) That the "chubby" girl was actually a normal-sized girl. Yeah, way to go on reinforcing the "fat people suck" mentality. I suppose, in comparison to the stick-thin actresses that peppered the movie, she was "chubby." But I'm sorry, when I find myself excusing it that way, it makes me mad. Things like this should not be excused. In fact, Colin Firth's character should have fallen for the waitress's chubby sister.
6) The anti-American sentiment, including a sleazy, asshole President, and American girls who are generalized to be white, corn-fed sluts. This is probably the thing I take least issue with, since it's a British film and they can be as negative in their commentary of Americans as they want to be. And it's not like it's entirely undeserved. But as an American, and more significantly, as an American woman, I felt offended by the movie's portrayal of what a typical American woman is like. Of course, this is the same guy who wrote Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill (the latter of which I did not like at all, and the former took me ages to warm up to, which happened mostly because of Hugh, not the story), so maybe he just has issues with American women.
7) I had trouble with Laura Linney's storyline. I hated that it was contrived so that her boss would pull her aside to tell her to go for the guy. I didn't like that the guy showed no interest in Laura until the night of the party, and then it seemed like he just wanted to get laid. While I appreciated Laura's love and devotion to her brother, it also frustrated me that there was apparently no happy medium; she had to be there 100% for her brother at the detriment of her own life/happiness. In a way I admire that, but I also think it's an unfair message to send -- that finding a balance would somehow be selfish.
Gee, you're thinking, if you hated the movie that much, why are you giving it a 7/8? I know all these issues makes it seem like I didn't like the movie; that's not the case. I enjoyed what we were given, there was a lot of heart, and it was all very well acted and well written. I cried in three separate spots: 1) When the placard dude was baring his soul to Keira; what can I say, I found it incredibly romantic and sad; 2) When Emma was crying over the Joni Mitchell CD, knowing that Alan had given the gold necklace to someone else; 3) Colin's proposal to Skinny Sister. In a way, though, I felt cheap as I was shedding these tears; I didn't believe they were as honestly earned as, say, Beaches or Steel Magnolias or even Titanic.
I loooooooved Hugh. He rox my sox. I didn't really like his storyline all that much, though. I liked it up to the point where he moved her away, and then the catalyst of the Christmas card was just too ... it wrapped too quickly and with not much believability.
I really enjoyed the cuteness of the stand-ins. Question: Do you believe they were in a porn film, or no? I really thought they were in a porn film, but![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jade_okelani and ropo, both of whom loved the movie to bits, pointed out all the little things that make that less likely (there are no stand ins for porn films, the guy had once been a stand-in for Brad Pitt, the crew was too large and the sets too expensive, etc.). It wouldn't even have occurred to me to question it; I thought they were porn actor stand ins. Not sure that your regular Joe would know that there aren't stand ins for porn, and it would have suited the movie better for them to not actually be porn stars.
Emma Thompson is a goddess. I liked the Liam Neeson storyline, though in a way I think it would have been better if the boy had been depressed about his mother. But no, once again it was about unrequited romantic love. Still, some of the stuff between them was the best of the movie. And I enjoyed Claudia Schiffer's cameo, even though I don't get why she's thought to be so beautiful. Her teeth are terrible.
I loved the nativity play with the lobster and the octopus. Heehee! And I'm such a sucker for storylines like Keira's ... I wish we could have had more of that. It could be a movie all on its own.
I could have done without the whole Brit-guy-goes-to-America storyline, but it had its moments.
You know what the most telling thing was? That when Liam and the boy were talking about love, and Titanic was up, and the boy said that there was only one love for Kate and Leo, I actually felt leftover emotion from that movie instead of this one. And after that, I couldn't help but notice the repetition of there being "just one person" -- Joanna being Sam's -- did not make nearly as much of an impact as the one reminder of Jack and Rose made ... at least for me.
Ooh, and I got to see a trailer for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which sounds really cool -- a refreshing plot -- but the trailer was odd. Three of my fave Brit actors (Kate Winslet, Christian Bale, and Jeremy Northam), completely absent from such big Brit films as Love Actually and the HPs. How disappointing!
Edited to add: I have just seen more of the sequel torainpuddle13's Fifteen Years. G&D have told their sons! Squeee!
Okay, so. Saw Love Actually yesterday. I actually didn't love Love Actually. I liked it. Overall I'd give it a 7/8, but oh, I had issues.
Of what we were shown, I'd give the film a solid 8. I enjoyed what we got, and many of the stories were well told (though I wonder if it might have been improved had there been fewer storylines). I had some issues here and there (which I'll get into), but it was primarily what we didn't get that bumps this film down to a 7. What those things were:
1) Lack of a significant mix of minorities. Now, if you go through the movie, there were definitely minority figures. However, the whole of the film felt very white, and the most important/significant character roles were played by Caucasians. That could be said of so many films; why pick on this one for it? I suppose it's because there were so many storylines that it was unsavory to me that this slew of characters didn't have more meaningful interactions with minorities. Where were the Asians? I know there are Asians in England (see Bend It Like Beckham), and yes, they are even in the upper-middle class, which seemed to be the circle most of the characters inhabited. The black characters were sprinkled here and there, but again, none with any significant role. So the film -- given the variety of people involved -- felt very white in a way that, say, Curtis's other work Bridget Jones' Diary, didn't.
2) Lack of many varied kinds of love. Just like with the miniorities, if you looked for them, sure, they were there. But for the most part, the emphasis was on the romantic relationships. And again, because this is supposed to be a film about love, all kinds of love, it felt lopsided. Maybe I wouldn't even have a problem with this if it weren't touted by others -- and by the film itself -- as being about love in all its forms. And of the other love relationships that it shows, those are subplots to the romantic. For instance: You could talk about Hugh/Emma's brother/sister love, but that wasn't even really shown. He kept dodging her phone calls, and when he showed up at the school play, it wasn't out of love for her or his niece/nephew; it was out of love/lust for that caterer gal. Where was the parent/child love? Emma and her kids? Sure, it was there, peripherally, but that storyline was mostly about Emma/Alan. And there was only one story about friendship? What about grandparents? Uncles/aunts? Love of a pet? Cousins? In fact, friendship love was even undermined in the Keira Knightley storyline (in favor of romantic love), in which one guy goes behind his best friend's back in order to declare his love/attraction for the former's wife. Nice.
I suppose I felt that this was a bunch of little romantic comedies put into one big movie, and in general I'm not a fan of romantic comedies because I find them trite, without any depth, and always, always, they have easy resolutions. But that's not true of all of them, and I've enjoyed my share ... this one kind of straddled that line, erring on the side of "good." But because there were so many storylines, I didn't really feel like I really knew many of the characters all that well, and I definitely didn't really feel the love (even if I did cry -- but I cry pretty easily. I cried during As Good As It Gets and I despise that movie). Not like, say, the love between CeeCee and Hillary in Beaches.
3) Related to the above, I was disturbed by the lack of a homosexual relationship. Homosexuality was discussed, and the characters acted as though it was no big deal, but at the end of the day, there was no homosexual couple. WTF? This was glaring because there were so many romantic entanglements. Not one of them could have been homosexual, to again, round out the different types of love? That irritates me.
So those were the big things I found lacking from the film. Now here are the other problems I had:
4) The placement of women in mostly traditional roles. We had housewives, mothers, secretaries, maids, waitresses. Laura Linney was a writer, but her boss was a male. We don't know what Keira Knightley did for a living, but why should I have any faith that it was anything empowering? Her character is defined by the man she married and the man who loves her but shouldn't.
5) That the "chubby" girl was actually a normal-sized girl. Yeah, way to go on reinforcing the "fat people suck" mentality. I suppose, in comparison to the stick-thin actresses that peppered the movie, she was "chubby." But I'm sorry, when I find myself excusing it that way, it makes me mad. Things like this should not be excused. In fact, Colin Firth's character should have fallen for the waitress's chubby sister.
6) The anti-American sentiment, including a sleazy, asshole President, and American girls who are generalized to be white, corn-fed sluts. This is probably the thing I take least issue with, since it's a British film and they can be as negative in their commentary of Americans as they want to be. And it's not like it's entirely undeserved. But as an American, and more significantly, as an American woman, I felt offended by the movie's portrayal of what a typical American woman is like. Of course, this is the same guy who wrote Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill (the latter of which I did not like at all, and the former took me ages to warm up to, which happened mostly because of Hugh, not the story), so maybe he just has issues with American women.
7) I had trouble with Laura Linney's storyline. I hated that it was contrived so that her boss would pull her aside to tell her to go for the guy. I didn't like that the guy showed no interest in Laura until the night of the party, and then it seemed like he just wanted to get laid. While I appreciated Laura's love and devotion to her brother, it also frustrated me that there was apparently no happy medium; she had to be there 100% for her brother at the detriment of her own life/happiness. In a way I admire that, but I also think it's an unfair message to send -- that finding a balance would somehow be selfish.
Gee, you're thinking, if you hated the movie that much, why are you giving it a 7/8? I know all these issues makes it seem like I didn't like the movie; that's not the case. I enjoyed what we were given, there was a lot of heart, and it was all very well acted and well written. I cried in three separate spots: 1) When the placard dude was baring his soul to Keira; what can I say, I found it incredibly romantic and sad; 2) When Emma was crying over the Joni Mitchell CD, knowing that Alan had given the gold necklace to someone else; 3) Colin's proposal to Skinny Sister. In a way, though, I felt cheap as I was shedding these tears; I didn't believe they were as honestly earned as, say, Beaches or Steel Magnolias or even Titanic.
I loooooooved Hugh. He rox my sox. I didn't really like his storyline all that much, though. I liked it up to the point where he moved her away, and then the catalyst of the Christmas card was just too ... it wrapped too quickly and with not much believability.
I really enjoyed the cuteness of the stand-ins. Question: Do you believe they were in a porn film, or no? I really thought they were in a porn film, but
jade_okelani and ropo, both of whom loved the movie to bits, pointed out all the little things that make that less likely (there are no stand ins for porn films, the guy had once been a stand-in for Brad Pitt, the crew was too large and the sets too expensive, etc.). It wouldn't even have occurred to me to question it; I thought they were porn actor stand ins. Not sure that your regular Joe would know that there aren't stand ins for porn, and it would have suited the movie better for them to not actually be porn stars.Emma Thompson is a goddess. I liked the Liam Neeson storyline, though in a way I think it would have been better if the boy had been depressed about his mother. But no, once again it was about unrequited romantic love. Still, some of the stuff between them was the best of the movie. And I enjoyed Claudia Schiffer's cameo, even though I don't get why she's thought to be so beautiful. Her teeth are terrible.
I loved the nativity play with the lobster and the octopus. Heehee! And I'm such a sucker for storylines like Keira's ... I wish we could have had more of that. It could be a movie all on its own.
I could have done without the whole Brit-guy-goes-to-America storyline, but it had its moments.
You know what the most telling thing was? That when Liam and the boy were talking about love, and Titanic was up, and the boy said that there was only one love for Kate and Leo, I actually felt leftover emotion from that movie instead of this one. And after that, I couldn't help but notice the repetition of there being "just one person" -- Joanna being Sam's -- did not make nearly as much of an impact as the one reminder of Jack and Rose made ... at least for me.
Ooh, and I got to see a trailer for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which sounds really cool -- a refreshing plot -- but the trailer was odd. Three of my fave Brit actors (Kate Winslet, Christian Bale, and Jeremy Northam), completely absent from such big Brit films as Love Actually and the HPs. How disappointing!
Edited to add: I have just seen more of the sequel to
rainpuddle13's Fifteen Years. G&D have told their sons! Squeee!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 03:38 pm (UTC)You know, I thought the whole time that the guy crushing on Keira Knightly was acting all weird because he had a crush on her husband. I was actually kind of disappointed when she learned the truth; it would have been a lot more interesting the other way...!
Question: Do you believe they were in a porn film, or no?
No, I didn't think so, for all the reasons that your friends cited - but my friend who I saw the film with thought they were. According to the official web site, they are said to be movie stand-ins. Then again, what kind of p0rno would be so big budget as to afford stand-ins? Not that I really know anything about p0rno film budgets. Um, yeah. O_o
I agree with all of your points. I found it to be incredibly manipulative - I mean, the swelling music, the fluffy scarves, the insufferable Britishness of it all... I couldn't help but get choked up! Best line: "Kids, don't buy drugs... become a pop star! Then people will just give them to you!" ^_^
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 04:24 pm (UTC)Totally. In fact, one of the rationalizations we came up with was that perhaps they were trying to throw us off with that storyline, so they wanted us to think that was the homosexual couple, and thus didn't want to have another to throw off the scent. Weak, weak reasoning, but that's all we got on the mystifying lack of a gay couple.
No, I didn't think so, for all the reasons that your friends cited - but my friend who I saw the film with thought they were.
Interesting; it's probably a 50/50 split. I mean, it did cross my mind that porn films wouldn't have stand ins; but again, for a mainstream movie, for an audience who wouldn't necessarily think about something like that, it makes more sense to have stand-in actors fall in love rather than actual porn stars, which would be a little more iffy/edgy. But that's just me trying to justify my own conclusions. Enough people didn't think they were porn stars that I can accept they weren't.
I actually normally like insufferable Britishness, and British humor. But yeah, I stand by all the issues I had. <g>
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 04:11 pm (UTC)It did flitter across my brain as I was reading that it actually could be Harry, since he's such an angry character now, but then I'd have to gouge my eyes out in penitence for accidentally reading H/G smut. The characterization to me favors Draco, but it makes no sense whatsoever that Ginny would ever choose to actually sleep with anyone else after she's been with Draco. I mean, honestly, why would she? Draco is a sex god, we all know this and all the other men will pale in comparison. The only man that would have that kind of allure for Ginny would be Tom Marvolo Riddle, but I don't think given the context that could be the case.
Anyway, Love Actually. I wasn't really super impressed with the movie--although it is better than most romantic comedies. The multiple plot threads made it really confusing to me when storylines like the one with Laura Linney and her coworker guy ended. I don't really know if I needed to see so much of the porno couple, and the anti-American sentiment was awfully disturbing. I didn't really get into the Hugh Grant romance either (like Bridget Jones, I prefer Colin Firth--his language mix up storyline with the maid cracked me up). The Alan Rickman/Emma Thompson storyline was well acted (Emma's character crying after opening the not-necklace present was probably the emotional climax) although I'm still kind of WTF over what actually happened with his secretary. The Keira Knightley story kind of disturbed me--I mean she's married! Even though she has no obvious chemistry with her husband. Liam Neeson was a bit wasted on so much dithering with the little kid--why was there so much of him and Emma Thompson in the beginning and none at the end? I mean, the movie was fun, but my analytical brain just won't let go of all the WTF moments the movie had. And what is the deal with all these men falling for their subordinates?
The race issue, eh, I don't really want to say too much about it, but there just aren't very many Asian actors/actresses that get into big time TV or movies. I mean, look at ER, in an actual hospital, a much more significant number of the doctors and med students would probably be Asian. And Friends is rather infamous for being a very white cast even though they're supposedly set in NYC.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-17 04:40 pm (UTC)Agreed, LA was better than most romantic comedies. That's why it got a 7/8, as opposed to a 4/5, which is what most romantic comedies average on my scale.
So you thought they were in a porn film, too!
Haha, I like Hugh and Colin both, but when Hugh's character isn't an asshole, I think I prefer him. <g> I agree about Emma's crying being the most emotionally resonating scene; everything about it made my chest hurt. :( It was especially odd as I'd just been talking with my friend about infidelity.
The Keira Knightley story kind of disturbed me--I mean she's married!
*guilty* I know, I know, I KNOW. You're so right. It's awful that stuff like that actually speaks to me. I know it shouldn't. And yet ... there is something so compelling about that scenario. It's twisted. You know, Ginny was married to Seamus in WIH ... <g> But still. Wrong.
why was there so much of him and Emma Thompson in the beginning and none at the end?
That is so, so true. I knew I was missing something. There were too many storylines to keep track of, but yes -- they dropped the ball on this one, imho. Unless that was just a cheap way to connect all the characters together, the way Colin Firth went to the wedding with Laura Linney but then none of them ever meet up again.
I mean, the movie was fun, but my analytical brain just won't let go of all the WTF moments the movie had.
Yes, exactly. I sound like a wet blanket with all my issues, and my friends are like, Shut up, I loved the movie and now you're ruining it! And I don't mean to do that, but I also can't let those things go. And those things affect my enjoyment of the overall product.
And what is the deal with all these men falling for their subordinates?
Yes, and why were they all subordinates, anyway????
It's true re: the race thing. I wasn't going to mention it, but like with the "chubby girl" thing, it irks me that I've kind of resigned myself to it by even considering not mentioning it. Like I said, though, lots of movies/TV/what not does that. The reason it was glaring in this film was because there was such a huge number of characters involved, so with every opportunity there was to present some kind of strong minority and/or female figure, it lost something when it didn't happen.
Rainpuddle's Greatness
Date: 2003-11-17 08:24 pm (UTC)However, in regards to your edit and
rambling...
Date: 2003-11-17 09:25 pm (UTC)I think the several stories just made it a little too much at times.
I still liked it tho :) I mean, it wasn't the best i've ever seen, but it was cute. And how can anyone not love Hugh Grant?
I love romantic comedies :-D I need things that take us away from the tedious aspects of everyday life. And since I'm never going to find my prince charming, I may as well watch other people do it :D
This is long overdue, but regarding Diana G.
(as i told Calliopie)
Anyways, though I appreciate your guys's input, and I have no doubt that this Diana G is a great author, time-travel is not really my thing. I've tried it before and can't get into. I'm one of those freaks that turns the littlest things into a philisophical question in my mind. Then I sit there and grapple with it. Time-travel happens to be one of those little things, so i have a hardtime getting into stories that use the plot with one person from one era with the others from another. I know, I know that sounds strange :D
Is this Fifteen Years archived anywhere?
Alrite, well i hope all is well with you!
*mwah*
Re: rambling...
Date: 2003-11-18 09:42 am (UTC)As for time travel, I have issues with it as well, particularly in movies. It all seems to necessarily create a paradox that makes no sense. However, Diana has a background in science (PhD in something or other, then was a professor for many years, etc.) and has her own theory of time travel, and here is an excerpt from an article she wrote for The Journal of Transfigural Mathematics titled Space, Time, and Event in Literature: Time and Time Travel (http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~gatti/gabaldon/timeandtimetravel.html).
It's just a theory, of course -- hers. However, I thought it might be helpful for you to see that she's not your typical novelist who just wrote what was "convenient" without any clue as to what she's talking about, and that she's actually done some deep thinking on the subject. : ) If you can't reconcile your own thoughts about time travel with hers, then certainly there's nothing to be done about it. To each her own.
As for Fifteen Years, I believe Pud has them all archived in her memories section -- at least, the parts she's posted.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-28 01:51 pm (UTC)Didn't mean to sound flat and prejudiced but when someone doesn't live in "the most powerful country in the world" but his country's future is depended entirely on it, i find it only normal to feel jealous perhaps, or angry.
Also i'd like to point out that where i come from people think that americans are way too influenced by television and have no real idea of what's going on in the outside world but only what *they* want to let out. I personally don't want to believe that.
Please forgive my cowardice not to name my country.