Explaining Again
Film Experience guy Nathaniel R. wrote to say he's glad I liked his redo of the Blob poster, which I posted last week. Also glad to see I'm still championing Things We Lost in the Fire. But he doesn't get where I'm coming from at all with Rachel Getting Married, which he feels is the best of the year thus far.
And I wrote back that while I admired and enjoyed much of Rachel Getting Married, I couldn't accept it as anything other than an expression of director Jonathan Demme 's soul and sensibility and world view. Which is fine as far as it goes. It's just that the wedding doesn't seem to be actually happening in Stamford, Connecticut, or any other recognizably "real" milieu for that matter. Any more than the characters behave in a way I would consider familiar, at least as far as the under-written (or non-written) African American characters are concerned.
The whole shebang is basically taking place in Demme Land, which to me is no different than Munchkinland or Emerald City. Cool places, engaging people, color and verve...but only tangentially related to the planet Earth.
People in Demme Land are very highly alert and attuned. Their hearts are light and gay, and their eyes are almost always sparkling with joy or full of feeling, and sometimes moist with tears. They laugh and pass along witty lines. They're spunky but sincere types, and very inquisitive. When they're in a crowd they have this irrepressible tendency to open their hearts and souls and let it all pour out. They kind of twitch and go "ooh!' a lot. They drink good wine and serve each other healthy food and drive sensible Priuses and Volvos. I would much rather hang with these people than, say, the family of Sarah Palin but they're still bothersome in some respects.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 10, 2008 at 9:12 AM
comment #1
raygo
says ...
Ebert's 4 star review really sealed this for me. I think his perspective is just right, considering the people involved beside's Demme. Maybe you'll reconsider after reading it. And Ebert himself is half of a mixed-race marriage, so I think his viewpoint was really interesting.
Posted by raygo
at October 10, 2008 9:58 AM
comment #2
Rodrigo
says ...
The interaction of white and black characters at an interracial wedding is depicted on screen without the inclusion of racial tensions or even broaching the subject...this kind of interracial dynamic is unfamiliar to you? I understand the P.C. irritation factor, but I hope you also understand the inherent racism in being bothered by the "non-written" African American characters simply because their relationships with dysfunctional white folks aren't plagued by constant jokes or mentions of racial differences. This may be unfamiliar to you, but you should probably consider making some new friends, or at the very least looking beyond your expectations.
Posted by Rodrigo
at October 10, 2008 11:31 AM
comment #3
Rodrigo
says ...
For that matter, why did "Things We Lost in the Fire" (which I loved as much as you and you definitely seem to "get") not contain a narrative subtext on racial tension given that the married Berry/Duchovny characters produced interracial children, family functions, etc.? Because to many people, it doesn't matter.
Posted by Rodrigo
at October 10, 2008 11:36 AM
comment #4
The Winchester
says ...
All I want to know is, does every character stare into the camera and talk like Demme always does?
Posted by The Winchester
at October 10, 2008 1:28 PM
comment #5
gruver1
says ...
Wells to Rodrigo: More p.c. bullshit. It's not inherently racist to ask for some definition, some quirkiness, some flavor in the African American characters in Rachel. There is no believable connection between Sidney and Rachel in the film. Sidney has...what, 14 or 15 lines? It is, I believe, a kind of benign reverse racism to make Sidney and his family all sweet, soothing, mellow, kindly. All I said -- and I'm getting really sick of people who don't read I've already written, thus forcing me to re-state myself over and over -- is not that the characters in Rachel should or would "comment" about the Rachel-Sidney visual dynamic, but we're not as far along the path as the p.c. fascists would contend and that in real life somebody -- maybe a kind person, maybe an asshole, maybe someone in between -- would say something benign or inconsequential or caring or funny or what-have-you, but it wouldn't be an absolutely non-acknowledged thing as it is in Rachel. Again, people at a screening laughed at me last summer for saying that our society has evolved past the point of susceptibility to another Willie Horton-type campaign, and that was 20 years ago. The currents in our society that produced (or at least were reflected by) Stanley Kramer's Guess Who's Coming to Dinner 40 years ago are mostly gone, thank fortune, but don't kid yourself into thinking they've been eradicated, even among enlightened, liberal, forward-thinking people. That's just fantasy, which is also what Demme's film is, in a sense. A smart, well-acted, wonderfully shot (though imperfectly scripted) fantasy for people who believe in and subscribe to healthy p.c. visions. And who believe in putting interesting textures and movement in films, which I believe in wholeheartedly myself.
Posted by gruver1
at October 10, 2008 2:27 PM
comment #6
Dan Revill
says ...
I found the Sidney-Rachel relationship to be substantial. Sure it's not all fire and passion on screen but there does seem to be a real undercurrent of love and compassion in the face of the whirlwind that is Kym.
I too think it's one of the best of the year, if not the best (so far).
Posted by Dan Revill
at October 10, 2008 3:19 PM
comment #7
insidah
says ...
I sort of liked this movie, although it BORROWS quite heavily from Ordinary People and Doing Time on Maple Drive. Like, heavily. It just dressed it up in this bizarre-o multi cultural wedding weekend that rang false. I mean, I grew up in Fairfield County - at the very least guests would have commented on this circus of music and types. To not include that judgement character or voice seemed weird to me. I mean, I guess Westport is sort of more liberal Jewish and cultural, but still...I don't think so.
Posted by insidah
at October 10, 2008 4:09 PM
comment #8
JD
says ...
Jeff, you're not being racist, just stupid. Rachel Getting Married may well be the best movie of the year and you've not only missed the point entirely, but you're focusing on trivialities in relation to a movie that's riddled with complexities. Look a little deeper, man.
Posted by JD
at October 10, 2008 6:53 PM
comment #9
rr3333
says ...
Jenny Lumet wrote the script without thinking this was an interracial couple getting married.
Demme added that wrinkle, so in a sense, I agree with Jeff that if Demme adds that to the mix, he should address it, at least in passing. Then again, the movie was not about an interracial couple getting married. it was about Kym and her relationship with her sister and her mother and father.
Weird that, for me, I forgot that the mother was played by Debra Winger while watching the movie. I finally realized that was her by her smokey voice at the end of the film. She was unrecognizable.
By the way, Irwin was GREAT. He wont get nominated, but should. Amazing actor!
Posted by rr3333
at November 3, 2008 1:18 PM
comment #10
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability servers
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 5:15 AM