Nat rented this on our movie night (Tuesdays because Blockbusters has a 15 peso per movie dealio) because it won 7 academy awards. It's set in Kenya in the early part of the 20th century and based on a book by nom de plum Isaak Dinesen, a Danish woman who wrote this as a memoir. I can remember when it came out- I was 9 years old in 1985 and alert of cultural shifts- we had a TV at that time and I'm sure I watched more than my fair share. I remember being aware that it was a romance, a woman's movie, and feeling somewhat repulsed by the connotations that went along with that. So it has stayed in my memory ever since and I've never had the urge to see it.
But all's fair game on movie night.
We watched the whole thing, not being charmed or impressed by Kurt Russel at all, but definitely impressed by Meryl Streep's gorgeous nearly 1920s wardrobe- sparkly hats, loosely hanging suits,nightdresses with hoods, neutral-colored work pants and flowy work dresses. What a relief the new fashion must have been in those days, corsetless?
Nat said the next day, "I've been thinking about that movie, and I think its so sad."
I was thinking that I agreed. As we were watching it, we were both rolling our eyes a bit at the airplane scene and what was supposed to be romantic camping and hunting outings. Wondering, is this what passes or passed for romantic? Who is this supposed to be pleasing? What are we supposed to think of Kurt Russel's free-wheeling, non-commital rejection of poor Meryl Streep's everyday life, everyday duties on the farm? And his rejection of her wanting some kind of commitment.
I would like to read the book because I think the movie was manipulative in the typical Hollywood way and I wonder if people shed tears at this one and at what point. I remember watching Titanic and crying when the band played and the ship went down and feeling so angry at the director for manipulating me in this way, at this moment. Telling me what was sad or what was romantic or what was tragic. Is this movie similar? It just seemed weirdly dated. And sad because she was constantly portrayed as being alone, abandoned, and cheated on.
I suppose it's interesting in a way because of how the issue of marriage is treated. This was in the 1920s and 30s and we hear criticism of the institution, "who do you know who is in a happy marriage?" and now I'm reading The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing which is set in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, with some similar tropes. The marriages and relationships there are dissected in their entirety and none of them fall flush with whatever illusions of marriage we see in advertisements or on TV sitcoms.
But I think women needed marriage much more in those times than now. The pressure on one of not being kept, not being married must have been enormous, scary, possibly dangerous.
How is it different now?
No comments:
Post a Comment