On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 04:57 PM, kelley at pulpculture.org wrote:
> At 03:08 PM 4/9/02 -0400, Dennis Breslin wrote:
>
>> I think you're way off base charging Moore of patronizing
>> and victim-blaming.
>
>
> i'm not saying HE does, but that he film does. as i noted already, you
> and i might know that moore doesn't take this position, but the film
> undermines his position b/c it focuses on things that are bound to
> evoke a reaction--for entertainment perhaps, too. the rabbit lady
> disgusts people. she is portrayed as a joke, laughable, an idiot.
i don't think the rabbit-lady disgusts people. i think the state of her life disgusts people. i don't think she's portrayed as an idiot, a joke, or laughable. i think, on the contrary, she's portrayed as trying to think of something, anything, to get by. i would agree that it *is* s a portrayal of brutality (but a brutality that only affects squeamish people who never think of how they get their meat--iirc, her butchering is about as humane as it could be--or what they would do if they were raising their own livestock for food), but i think the brutality of her life is what puts us off. admittedly, she seems quite casual about it, but i imagine most people looking to make money and eat by raising and butchering livestock would get that way pretty quickly.
> ditto the color lady who decides to invest money in a Avon-like venture
> where she sells people on color palettes for their make up and
> wardrobe. another doofy decision. she's portrayed as just as dumb as
> the town fathers and chamber of commerce boosters. (I know these types
> well, in my town, they wanted to put a dome over main st. to compete
> with the malls. quaintify it with street lamps and urban renewal funds
> for facade repair and try get yuppies to come first the olde tyme
> towne. @@ )
people do silly, stupid things. so, he should make her look not-stupid despite the inanity of the venture? i don't think that does any good. if anything, that would be even more patronizing than letting what they do speak for itself in the quite explicit, inescapable context of the plant closings, etc.
both of these people come off WAY better than the newlywed game guy, whose name, alas, escapes me, or even pat boone. iirc.
it's interesting, though, thinking about this, as i haven't seen the film for some time. i wonder if the parallel you draw between the color-lady and the chamber of commerce types isn't accurate in one respect, particularly: there's a certain reality-denial at work in both cases. different, but still . . . makes me want to see the film again.
>
>> Moore's focus is on the folly of officials
>> in responding to the loss of jobs - it is a system outta whack
>> looking to tourism and other bogus urban redevelopment
>> schemes. The bad choices depicted in the film seem to come
>> from those in power, not in the immorality of laid-off workers
>> and people being evicted.
>
> yes, for you. the memorable parts of the film for others, though, are
> the rabbit lady and the color lady.
[no snideness here, honest] - what "others"? what audience misses it? i think there are plenty of people who are capable of seeing it. more on this below.
> oh, and the black guy who goes to work for someone who evicts people.
> the black guy, in the camera's eye, is a scab, as carrol likes to call
> them. i suspect moore looks at them a little like that--i do in my
> worst moments. what my students think is something like this: "what a
> jerk he is. sure, he's gotta make a living. but other people aren't
> working for the company that evicts people."
i admit i've always had trouble processing this. it's tricky. on the one hand, you take jobs where you can get them. on the other, how do you get up and look at yourself every day when you pay your own rent by literally dumping people who can no longer pay theirs onto the street? id be an alcoholic in no time flat.
>
> now, we're supposed to think, "damn capitalism, look what it does to
> people." but the film doesn't encourage that sort of thinking--it's a
> limitation of a medium that relies on imagery, i suspect.
i disagree. i think it does encourage that, and when i first saw the film, it was still very early in my left-turning. this movie wasn't for me a watershed, but it did galvanize a lot of things. i think it's actually very good that way.
>
> the rabbit lady scenese are thought provoking, but the viewer has to
> bring a framework to get there. otherwise, she comes off as a
> stringy-haired idiot who seems unable to reflect on what's happening in
> her life. i suspect that this isn't true at all. could moore have
> talked to her a bit more, to get her to address the issues he's
> implicitly raising? i think he could have, and he could have done so in
> ways that are a bit more flattering to the dignity of the people in
> that film.
>
maybe the situation just really doesn't leave them with much dignity. maybe that's part of the point? again, i'm not being snide, here. isn't that the point, at a certain level? and what is dignity, anyway?
need to go watch the movie again. tempted to rent it tonight, but won't work.
j