Whatever Happened to Fun?

So I can't remember if I blogged about this or not, but a while back there was a Manohla Dargis article about movies made for female audiences in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that in spite of what one would think, there are very, very few movies made for or about and especially by women, and that every time one is and it succeeds, people are shocked. In spite of her having written this article, the Times has managed to be shocked not once but twice this summer.

Since it's opening the same weekend as the new Batman, they're not gonna be shocked thrice by Mamma Mia!, but based on A.O. Scott's horrified review I would still say they were. And I would like to say: What the eff?

The review that actually got my blood boiling enough to write this post was Anthony Lane's New Yorker review of Sex and the City. (I was also very much let me say first inspired by the two letters [this one and to a lesser extent this one] that the New Yorker, to its credit, did publish.) In any event: What these two reviews share in common is stepping outside of their role of critiquing the movie -- the acting, editing, and what have you -- and spilling over into critiquing anyone who would dare to enjoy the movie. I mean in the SATC review Lane appears absolutely appalled that anyone would find anything pleasurable at all in it, while in his review of Mamma Mia! Scott basically reassures his audience that if they slip and indulge in watching this movie, no one has to know about it afterward and any ill effects need not be longterm. Whatttt???

So if we remember, I saw SATC a while ago, and while I had issues with it, I also had fun. I saw Mamma Mia! yesterday, and yes, even I, who am not at all knowledgeable about these things, was shocked in some parts by what appeared to be sloppy editing (weird continuity in particular, so people's hands appear to leap from their heads to their sides) and simply bad choices (slo-mo? Really?). But at the same time, it was kind of fun for me -- and it was definitely fun for other people in the audience, who frequently clapped along during the more uptempo musical numbers. At the end of one of those, a woman behind me actually sighed to her friend, "That was fun."

So you see where my problem with these reviewers lies. Reviewing movies is their job, and indeed, they're lucky to have it. That said, they need to stick to it. It is neither part of their job description nor is it advisable for them to begin reviewing the behavior of their movie-going peers. I'm not saying they have to like these movies, or say only nice things or nothing at all, I'm just saying, know your role. Possibly, indulge in some other-centered thinking: Likely these two would enjoy, for example, the Criterion Collection's art house classics, a lot of the fans of these movies would not. Does this mean either side is right or wrong? No.

I think this issue has also been on my mind more recently not only as I grapple with my own work (and my own love-hate it's-bad-for-you-no-wait-but-it's-sooo-good relationship with my object of study) but also because I recently read Barbara Risman's Gender Vertigo and it was excellent. One of (I think) the best points she makes doesn't come until the end, when she's musing on reasons why it is so hard to get rid of or even diminish the salience of gender as a schema for categorization (and inevitably from that, stratification). She writes that, "...at least some of the deeply felt reaction to changing gendered roles in families or in the workplace springs from the fear of going too far, of denying one of the few means of easily accessible, socially acceptable, nonfattening, healthy pleasures available to us: doing gender in ways we enjoy" (1998: 159). The example she uses is getting dressed -- that the presentation of the self (paraphrasing Goffman sort of) is one of the only areas in most societies where as adults, people are allowed any level of creativity.

Risman reminds us to take this pleasure seriously, which I think is a really important point: Whether it's putting on lip gloss or watching a silly movie, people do often enjoy "doing gender." This gets us beyond simple power dynamics and puts us in messier -- yes, emotional, deal with it, sociology -- territory. It's not that men just love to dominate or (the even-worse theorization) women just love to be dominated, but that people do, at times, enjoy gender. They enjoy bending gender, they enjoy conforming to gender, let's face it, sometimes they just like doing it. Try to take it away, and they will cling to it. So what to do? Risman suggests opening things up to let everyone play with the full range of possibilities. She says, "allowing much more creativity in self-presentation feels more like liberation than does the deemphasizing of gender that we now pleasure ourselves in doing" (1998: 161). I'm not sure exactly what my take on this is, but I will say Risman's idea is certainly not a bad one. And certainly a much better one than condemning pleasure in the manner of the above-noted gentlemen.

And after all this, what did I think of Mamma Mia!? It was okay. It makes Greece look frickin' gorgeous. Meryl Streep went to Vassar and Amanda Seyfried was in Mean Girls, so you know I'm not about to hate on them. And I got from it what I wanted, which was to enjoy a bit of Abba. A little from time to time's not bad, no? I feel like my first major Abba exposure was Muriel's Wedding, which I totally recommend. (Oh look, does A.O. Scott read my blog? 'Cause a week later, he's recommending it too.) Then I remember getting the full Abba treatment back when VH-1 was more like VH-1 Classic and less like a cesspool of has-been celebrities -- back when they showed videos under program names such as 8-Track Flashback. They seemed to have an endless stream of Abba performances from Musikladen -- I always remember one where the ladies are wearing belted t-shirt dresses with graphics of cats on them. (Who knew that was enough of a thing that you can buy it as a costume?) Anyway. I was disappointed they didn't include the song "Fernando," but maybe it's cause they knew they couldn't do it better than Spike Lee did in Summer of Sam -- I now forever associate that song with that opening scene. I did enjoy the extensive use of "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" (it's the big sample in "Hung Up" by Madonna), though they could've made more of "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do." I was also really hoping for cameos by the members of Abba (I mean what ever happened to those two gals? The creepy dudes with the beards freakin' executive produced the movie), but no dice.

P.S. After considering and rejecting several potential titles for this post (including "I enjoy being a girl"), I went with this one. It's the title of a great song by a group called Candy. Unfortunately, the video I'm linking to is I think what must be the studio version of it -- I have a demo version that's faster, doesn't have the harmonies on the chorus, and is just fantastic.

[I started this months ago, and just finished it now -- for some reason, I got stuck on this one story toward the end which really wasn't that bad. On the whole, I'd say this wasn't their best collection -- maybe 2006 was just a bad year for the short story (this is very possible). Even the stories by authors I particularly like, like Donna Tartt and Tobias Wolff, were just okay. That said, I'm still trying in my way to read them all, so it's not like I'm gonna skip this one. Maybe now I'll get around to the 2007 edition, which has been sitting on my shelf since... 2007.]

Currently Reading: The Best American Short Stories 2006 (Ann Patchett, guest ed.)