First of all, I should preface by saying that I probably qualify as a feminist - a feminist, that is, in the old sense of the term (perhaps the oldest): While I'm no expert in the issues or history, if a TARDIS trip were to land me a hundred years ago in an appropriate city, then I would probably be marching with the suffragettes. Women ought to have the right to vote, are as intelligent as men (though often in different ways!), are capable and ought to be employed in whatever field we are called to, should be treated with respect and dignity, and certainly ought to be paid at the same rate as everyone else. I might add that "homemaker" is an intellectually and physically challenging field to which a woman is often called and uniquely suited, and that in the pursuit of equality in all things feminists have sacrificed many traditional signs of respect accorded to women alone. History is replete with ironies.
With that established (and I probably won't return to it, since I don't find feminism an interesting subject), I can now address what brings me here in the first place; "It's a Wonderful Life"!
Ok, a bit late; but... This is one of my favorite Christmas movies. (My other favorite Christmas stories deserve a post all their own.) Many people love the film; but the very popularity of "It's a Wonderful Life" is a disadvantage, since it has become clichéd. This has led to all sorts of criticisms; everything from the silliness of Clarence the Angel 2nd Class, to the boringness of Bedford Falls vs. Pottersville. But if you really watch it, you can find much that is excellent, as cinema, as storytelling, as a character study. Sentimental? This film is almost anything but!
I know there are flaws and some criticisms of "It's a Wonderful Life" have merit. But certain things really bug me. I will restrain myself to comment on only two, found in the movie's FAQ on IMDb (here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm). Both have to do with the "alternate" Mary Hatch (Bailey), and reveal an innate modern feminism - and then something worse.
First, the question of why the alternate Mary wore glasses. They answered that the filmmakers probably were indicating that the old maid had time to read more books (a good thing), which caused her eyesight to fail (medically false). Or alternatively, Mary always needed glasses but didn't wear them in real-reality because (to quote them), 'boys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses.' At this point I explode in outrage: What!? Is that what we see in this? That Mary was only trying to look pretty according to an outmoded and ludicrous standard?! How tragic is this perception! Mary Hatch the old maid had long lost the dream of being as beautiful as Mary Bailey was. Mary Hatch was caged in the career of an independent single woman, while Mary Bailey was busy and productive. With no one to love, Mary Hatch was depressed and clearly did not take care of herself, and that would lead to ill health that might cause loss of eyesight. Mary Bailey loved and was loved, and shone. How sad that this fulfilling (if woefully traditional - that was sarcasm) life is dismissed so scornfully!
And then, still worse, a question I can't believe would be frequently asked: Why is George Bailey not happy to find his wife single and lost without him? This is repulsive and despicable. Are we so pettily jealous? Are we so self-centered? Are we so arrogant, that many would be pleased to find a wife depressed and sick and alone rather than with some other man? And the answer? this a direct quote, "This is considered an error in the movie with no explanation." An ERROR?! At the very least, this is George's humility; he always thought that Mary could do better than him and was horrified that she wouldn't try. But it's also a demonstration of George's love; he'd rather have Mary with someone else than languishing alone. But surely it can't be George's greatness also! It was disinterested love - love of Mary for her own sake, no matter where he stood in relation to her, without desire to possess her! Perhaps this is the worst result of feminism, an inverted and festering male domination; that we assume there are no men like George Bailey.
No comments:
Post a Comment