mamadeb | (no subject)

I was watching Kate and Leopold today. I missed the first half hour or so (maybe more - I forget when I started watching) and, my *goodness*.

What a terrible mistake she made.

I probably don't need this, but .

I kept yelling at the screen. Yes, it's a romantic comedy and so I shouldn't be thinking of these things, but she goes back in time 125 years to marry an impoverished English duke. Which means she's giving up independence (Meg Ryan had just been made the head of the New York division of an ad agency - something she'd worked very hard for), modern medicine, electricity and comfortable clothes to be the entirely dependent wife of a duke who no longer has any avenue to get money other than selling or leasing his ancestral home. Since they must live in a certain style, they would also be in great debt. Mid-19th C clothes were uncomfortable and often health hazards.

She has been removed from her friends and family, including the brother she loves and the world she understands. And she will regret it. Probably around the time she loses children to scarlet fever - preventable by vaccine and curable by antibiotics, or faces childbirth in less than sanitary conditions with no choice about using anesthetics at all, or with the possiblity of a c-section if necessary.

(Meanwhile, my husband is shouting about going from the Brooklyn Bridge, which was stalled in construction then, to Madison Avenue - five miles - on foot in 20 minutes.)

Kinda kills the romance, I know, but then I'm not sure the tight white pants were proper eveningwear, either. Or the fancy embroidery, even for a Duke.

*Sigh*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

As I recalled it, he had just invented the elevator, which would take care of the poverty bit. But yes, it's a really appalling movie from a feminist/realist standpoint, with its idea that 19th century men "knew how to treat a woman" and that 20-21st century liberation is all just a big mistake. Even Hugh Jackman couldn't salvage that movie for me.

I saw the name Otis, but that was the butler, I thought. I've never seen this movie before, and I mssed the beginning.

Yeah, though. Did he realize he was telling Charlie to sell himself as falsely as he was selling the nasty margarine?

Huh. Well.

Your mentioning of Charlie reminded me of another thing about this movie, something that's both an upside and a downside depending on how one looks at it: to me, both Meg Ryan's brother and boyfriend seemed more in love with Hugh Jackman than she was. Very strange. :-)

I can't speak about the boyfriend, but yeah. Charlie for certain.

I'm pathetic. I really, really like romantic flicks and I may cringe when reading others' views of them (like now) because they're oh-so-true, I still go back to watch them. :D

OH, don't be. I like yelling at the screen.

I do want to watch it from the beginning. I can't help nitpicking, though. It's what I do.

Totally unrelated, but I adore your icon! I wonder if Glass ever tried using that defense!

I'm sure he would've if he thought he could actually get away with it.

Journalism in General: We hate you.

Stephen Glass: No, really! You see, it was this creative writing assignment...

I have to say one thing, Iremember reading Glass's stories as they came out and they were terrific. I know they were false - but the sheer talent!

So why doesn't he own Hollywood now, uh?

The man was brilliant no doubt, but he didn't get journalism. Rather, he didn't get being a grownup and taking your job seriously because a magazine is putting its good name on your shoulders.

I believe he's practicing law now--so perhaps he's putting his talents to other good use. It really is a shame, though.

Yes, but there are a gazillion lawyers and very few brilliant writers. I remember his piece on the psychic hotlines, and the stories he made up of people calling him (working on the hotline) were Brokeback Mountain-quality, all about loneliness and people not in control of their lives. He had a talent for immediacy and the telling detail. I tell you, I'd pay for fiction by that guy.

The thing that irked me about the film was that she was in a relationship with a great-grandchild or something at the beginning (him being a descendant of Leopold's, who has no offspring at the time he fast-forwards to 2000 or what was it). I may be wrong. Apart from that, it was a Chick Drops Everything for Hugh Jackman flick for me.

I've never seen this movie, but if she knows in advance she's going back in time, couldn't she bring a couple of blueprints for cool inventions and then get rich by making them first? Or doing a bit research which companies will be hugely successful soon, or maybe look up a couple of horseraces or whatever was being bet on then... I don't think money would be an issue when going back in time.

She has twenty-three minutes to decide, and part of that time she has to make a speech to realize that's what she should be doing and then she has to be stuck in traffic.

So, no, no time for that. Also - that's too practicle for a romance.

As you can tell from my icon, I'm a huge Liev Schreiber fan. I think it would have been nice if she had at least apologized to Stuart for treating him like he was crazy when it turned out he was actually right.

I'd have liked to have seen more of him, but I started watching late.

I feel very sorry for Charlie. For all intents and purposes, his sister just died, and he's supposed to be happy.

oh.

I'm very glad I did not see this movie.

Time travel romances where the woman goes back in time always strike me as being patently unfair. Because 99.99% of the time, the woman just got an incredibly raw deal.

Sure, our impovrished UK Duke may not be a natural for the modern day job market, but you know, she's making good money. He can be installed in college for a few years, as a "Welcome to the 21st Century" gift.

Although, I suspect that his 19th century world view, on race, gender, sex, and all the rest would not make him the most popular student. "Now about the Irish..."

Call me the anti-romantic, but I'm entirely to practicaly to be willing to go anywhere pre-antibiotics and modern plumbing.

And quite honestly I love my computer enough that I can't see the point at all.

Hugh Jackman my be beautiful and fascinating, but I know about 19th century rights of women. And I'm not going.

He had no problem about that - he'd already gotten a job as a commercial spokesman for some vile diet margarine. Through her. Because, well. Hugh Jackman. :)

And I agree. I like my modern medicine and civil rights and functional bathroom. Not to mention my gas stove and microwave and refrigerator. Especially my refrigerator.

While Hugh looks great in this movie I would never 'move' to a century that didn't include indoor plumbing complete with hot and cold running water. I'm just snobbish that way.

And yes, there's a laundry list of other things I can't do without, but if I had to pick one, indoor plumbing is a deal breaker.

Storyline aside, dumping Liev Schreiber and running of with Jackman just seems wrong. I am all for Liev.