| re: finally | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 08:07 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 08:04 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - IvyLeagueDropout 10:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| This piece is so welcome, and should open an expansive conversation about art, the era of its creation, the value of looking back trough contemporary eyes. It's become impossible to discuss, particularly in social media, without an escalation of accusations, often resulting in a segue to ad hominem attack. I got into a discussion of Tea and Sympathy about a year ago (not at this site) that created a small firestorm. My simple observations about the play/film's value as a portrait of toxic masculinity -- daring to say that much could be learned from Anderson's accurate portrait of of the Kerr character's husband, memorably played by Leif Erickson on B'way and in the film -- resulted in heated diatribes, especially about "that ending." At one point I was accused of being pro-conversion therapy. (As if anyone today would believe one time in the woods with Deborah Kerr would shift sexual identity. We can observe "that ending" with clear-eyed understanding, and recognize the pressure on the protagonist without accepting Anderson's coda as psychological absolute. Now, we see, too, the rank misogyny in the Hollywood adjustment in Kerr's character, that she's rendered morally tainted. It doesn't negate what we learn from the story before. And in today's society, alas, these issues aren't fully exorcised. What we often fail to accept: audiences are smart. They can look at stories penned in another era and view them through a modern prism. The idea that points of view voiced by characters represent a fixed sociopolitical opinion in the work of art itself insults audiences. We learn, we appreciate cultural growth, the distance we've come. And we also see what hasn't changed. I won't belabor Tea and Sympathy, but its depiction of fetishized masculinity as infused with homoeroticism makes it a striking study today. The Erickson character's obsession with insular male rituals, always excluding women, is probably more fascinating today than in the 50s. But it's true of many stories. We see all that's changed, but also much that's stayed the same (Exhibit A: Florida trying to outlaw any positive mention of LGBTQ+ history in education. It's not far from the world Anderson dramatized in a boarding school.) Mainly, and many disagree, the constant fiddling with others' work invites a bigger, more dangerous issue: who is the decisive arbiter? These fixers are invariably self-appointed, which makes me most nervous. I say, open up the past for examination. What we don't like provides a teachable moment like few others. Note: I went off on Tea and Sympathy, only because we all seem to have individual experiences with pieces that others want to ban or revise. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: finally - IvyLeagueDropout 10:14 pm EST 02/15/22 |
| Next: | Does anyone still serve up 'Tea and Sympathy'? - WaymanWong 04:56 pm EST 02/17/22 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.010568 seconds.