fifty frenchmen can't be wrong (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
some_stars) wrote2011-06-13 07:40 pm
some_stars) wrote2011-06-13 07:40 pm
this is a bit grumpy but i swear: STILL IN LOVE
I continue to write half-assed meta about First Class and then not post it. However I will cheerfully link to other meta that gets at some of what I'm trying to say when I keep flailing and repeating but he's a NAZI WAR CRIMINAL, because seriously, this movie had some fucked-up ideas.
"...what troubles me about the film is that it feels like yet another expression of an attitude that I've been noticing more and more often in Western, and particularly American, popular culture as it struggles with the topic of genocide and national trauma--a crucial failure of empathy, imagination, and, finally, perspective, that leads to a blanket condemnation of anger. [...] I see it in the increasing prevalence of vengeful victim characters, who are condemned not for the choices they make in pursuit of revenge, but simply for feeling anger. [...] Charles is the hero because he thinks peace of mind is more important than punishing a mass murderer. Erik is the villain because he can't stop being angry at the person who murdered his mother in front of him. Scratch just a little bit beneath that surface and you'll find the ugly truth that underpins most of Hollywood's attempts to grapple with the Holocaust and atrocities like it. Erik is a villain not because of what he does with his anger, but because bad things happened to him. Charles is the hero because he's lucky enough not to have been victimized. The fact is, Hollywood--pop culture in general, actually--doesn't like victims."
so uh that was an overly-long quote but: HOW I FEEL. Expressed by someone else with actual sentences and stuff. Also: some of the stuff in this post, not all of which I'm totally in agreement with but all of which is interesting and needs thought. Mainly I feel like--I'm on board with the interpretation of this movie where Charles is a total dick and wrong about so many things, and I'm pretty sure McAvoy was bringing that to his performance, and there are moments in the script where it appears...but it's obvious to me that we're not supposed to come away from the movie thinking of them as anything but HERO and VILLAIN. Charles starts off immature and grows into heroism, Erik starts off sympathetic and hardens into villainy. We can bring all the intelligent interpretation we like, and we SHOULD, because that's what we're FOR and I love reading it and thinking about it...but ultimately it's something we're bringing in. It's not what we're supposed to be thinking and it's not what the vast majority of the audience is thinking. And that just leaves me feeling sort of icky, as always.
OH WELL, more fic will help, fic always helps. I love you, fandom. Even if your kinkmemes are sometimes horrifying. (Paraplegia: not a sexy exotic form of bondage! Stroking someone's concentration camp tattoo: not an instant shortcut to passionate confessions and weepy intimacy! Mystique: not a sex toy!)
Also, man, I really need to get me a Jew icon again, I am constantly feeling its lack.
"...what troubles me about the film is that it feels like yet another expression of an attitude that I've been noticing more and more often in Western, and particularly American, popular culture as it struggles with the topic of genocide and national trauma--a crucial failure of empathy, imagination, and, finally, perspective, that leads to a blanket condemnation of anger. [...] I see it in the increasing prevalence of vengeful victim characters, who are condemned not for the choices they make in pursuit of revenge, but simply for feeling anger. [...] Charles is the hero because he thinks peace of mind is more important than punishing a mass murderer. Erik is the villain because he can't stop being angry at the person who murdered his mother in front of him. Scratch just a little bit beneath that surface and you'll find the ugly truth that underpins most of Hollywood's attempts to grapple with the Holocaust and atrocities like it. Erik is a villain not because of what he does with his anger, but because bad things happened to him. Charles is the hero because he's lucky enough not to have been victimized. The fact is, Hollywood--pop culture in general, actually--doesn't like victims."
so uh that was an overly-long quote but: HOW I FEEL. Expressed by someone else with actual sentences and stuff. Also: some of the stuff in this post, not all of which I'm totally in agreement with but all of which is interesting and needs thought. Mainly I feel like--I'm on board with the interpretation of this movie where Charles is a total dick and wrong about so many things, and I'm pretty sure McAvoy was bringing that to his performance, and there are moments in the script where it appears...but it's obvious to me that we're not supposed to come away from the movie thinking of them as anything but HERO and VILLAIN. Charles starts off immature and grows into heroism, Erik starts off sympathetic and hardens into villainy. We can bring all the intelligent interpretation we like, and we SHOULD, because that's what we're FOR and I love reading it and thinking about it...but ultimately it's something we're bringing in. It's not what we're supposed to be thinking and it's not what the vast majority of the audience is thinking. And that just leaves me feeling sort of icky, as always.
OH WELL, more fic will help, fic always helps. I love you, fandom. Even if your kinkmemes are sometimes horrifying. (Paraplegia: not a sexy exotic form of bondage! Stroking someone's concentration camp tattoo: not an instant shortcut to passionate confessions and weepy intimacy! Mystique: not a sex toy!)
Also, man, I really need to get me a Jew icon again, I am constantly feeling its lack.