1. So I agree with the comment in the thread that “we Straussians” are overdoing our texual analysis of our President’s Second Inaugural. Maybe we even do the same thing with President Lincoln’s (although it was much better and actually beautiful). SOME of us did the same with President Bush the younger’s Second Inaugural, including our silent friend JWC. We can hope that the true comparison of Obama is with Bush. We can hope that history will show that their speeches displayed unmerited confidence based on misapplications of American principle.
2. Another threader said that he enjoyed our dumb comments on pop culture more than our futile efforts to make the Republicans better. So let me brag that I predicted what would happen in the second episode this season on GIRLS. Hanna, reveling in her in-control relationship with the African-American Randian law student, asks him to read one of her essays. He turns out to be quite a gentleman, and so he keeps telling her he hasn’t got around to reading it (although he really has). She gets all touchy about him not really caring about her and her work. So he finally admits that he’s read it. He tells her as kindly as he can that it’s well written but not for him. It doesn’t really say anything, it’s trivial etc. She gets all offended and ends up to saying that out of high principle she can’t be with a Republican–someone who necessarily hates gays and women. So she dumps him to show her solidarity with those oppressed groups (forgetting, of course, that his group has been historically a lot more oppressed). Self-esteem issues remain, although not with the black “conservative” who through his precise speech shows he knows exactly who he is. I repeat: This is (who knows how?–Lena Dunham doesn’t sound so smart when she’s interviewed etc.) a very subversive show.
3. After THE MISERABLES, I was too traumatized to go the movies again for a while. But recently I saw three that were very enjoyable and genuinely uplifting: THIS IS 40, NOT FADE AWAY, and SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. Each is a touching and at least fairly astute relational and deeply pro-family movie. Wonderfully displayed in each is the character of the old-guy dad who does his duties out of love despite unrequited longings and other emotional issues: John Lithgow AND Albert Brooks in THIS IS 40, James Gandofini in NOT FADE AWAY, and Robert De Niro in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK.
Quickly: I’m not sure why THIS IS 40 isn’t better appreciated as Apatow at his best; it’s a worthy successor to KNOCKED UP. NOT FADE AWAY isn’t perfect, but it was directed by THE SOPRANOS’ David Chase, features (Tony) Gandofini, and has a sountrack by (Little) Steven Van Zandt. Not only that, it’s about middle-class Jersey in the 60s, the emergence of basement rock bands based on the early ROLLING STONES, and the right kind of ambivalence about the infusion of the 60s pretenses into the neighborhood. For more, let’s hear from Carl! SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is easily the best movie of the year. It’s about mental illness, but more exactly about living well enough with being a little crazy through love (of others a little crazy) and family. It also has an inspired soundtrack and is filmed in real Philly neighborhoods and in the parking lot of the Eagles’ stadium. I could go on and say stuff about the Jennifer Lawrence performance, but it might get a little creepy.
January 24th, 2013 | 11:23 am
[...] 1. So I agree wit the comment in the thread that “we Straussians” are overdoing our texual analysis of our President’s Second Inaugural. Maybe we even do the same Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
January 24th, 2013 | 12:02 pm
Not sure how much “creative control” Dunham has over the show, but she didn’t write this latest episode. That may account for the disparity between her interviews and the show.
January 24th, 2013 | 12:06 pm
I guess an artist doesn’t need to be so smart as much as observant. Sounds like, though Dunham’s not very smart, she might be able to see and portray things close to how they are.
January 24th, 2013 | 3:34 pm
Apparently Dunham has stated that much of what informs her writing was the absurdities she experienced as a child of successful Manhattan society types. So it’s quite possible her writing comes more from practical experience than high cultural insight.
BTW another great Old-guy Dad in pop culture today is the Craig T. Nelson character in the tv show Parenthood. It seems to me Parenthood would be a good example of an attempt to explore the that tense middle ground between Girls and Downton Abbey in matters of social roles and responsibilities versus personal liberation. It has the added virtue of being produced by the same guys that produced Friday Night Lights and in my opinion benefits from the same degree of thoughtfulness and chacterization.
Just my two cents.
January 24th, 2013 | 3:51 pm
Thanks Peter for reminding me of my wanting to see “Not Fade Away.” I have to remind myself now that I’m living in a real metro area again, I actually can see more than the top five movie options.
January 24th, 2013 | 4:00 pm
I concur that Silver Linings was good. Not to be creepy either, but Jennifer Lawrence’s performance in the movie made me a fan.
January 24th, 2013 | 4:10 pm
The key to good art, usually, is to draw upon practical experience and stay away from theoretical insight until you really need it. I agree with Craig T. and PARENTHOOD. As a show, PARENTHOOD suffers from too many plotlines at once and excessive earnestness. It’s much better than MODERN FAMILY, though.
Thanks for the clues on why GIRLS “deconstructs.”
January 24th, 2013 | 4:32 pm
“the old-guy dad who does his duties out of love despite unrequited longings and other emotional issues”
Red Forman and even Al Bundy in th early seasons of the show (though they were more like middle-aged.) I could see an argument that Bundy would be above the median (though only a little) in a lot ways.
January 24th, 2013 | 4:41 pm
Red and Al weren’t that old, but they were both good. MARRIED WITH CHILDREN is underrated as the absolutely minimalist family-value show, even more so than the over-appreciated SIMPSONS. THAT 70s SHOW was very uneven and jumped the shark years before it left the airwaves, but Red was alway the man.
January 24th, 2013 | 7:23 pm
The first few season of Married With Children really are underrated as they are often quite witty (especially seasons two and three), before it became cartoonish in later years.) Its part Honeymooners, part All In The Family (though with no overt didacticism), part satire of the Cosby Show and probably other stuff I’m not thinking about. As I was reading Charles Murray’s long article on Belmont and Fishtown a while back and was struck that, while Al was supposed to be a chauvinist loser relic even when the show was made a quarter century ago, it is more his lifelong marital fidelity and employment stability at the bottom of the skill and income distribution that seems most anachronistic (that and owning a three bedroom house on what it supposed to be his tiny salary)- even if lots of people still fit that description.
January 24th, 2013 | 7:29 pm
“PARENTHOOD suffers from too many plotlines at once and excessive earnestness.”
“Excessive earnestness” is a suspiciously ironist sounding criticism. It seems to me that the culture could use a great deal more earnestness. I suppose a debate could be had about how to do that well and maybe Parenthood falls short.
However, my suspicion is that we may be a little too influenced by the reflexively ironic spirit of our times such that a movie that purports to deal with the challenges of parenthood in a non-ironic way (as opposed to say Modern Family which is sort of Parenthood’s subversive evil twin) is reflexively perceived as over the top. Maybe even regardless of its actual merits.
I’m thinking out loud here, but I think the point is worth consideration. Downton Abbey in this respect may be forgiven more easily since it’s setting naturally distances itself from our time and so one could always claim that its sentimentalism about tradition is representative of its bygone age. So we ironists are free to enjoy it while not feeling any dissonance with our own sense of modern sophistication.
Clearly I’m a man born after my time it seems.
January 24th, 2013 | 7:54 pm
Well, Pseudo, maybe you’re right. But PARENTHOOD overwhelms us with too many issues at any particular time. And sometimes it just finds itself in the neighborhood of cloying and ridiculous. Case in point: The scene of the whole extended family in the judge’s chambers with the sundry testimonials and encouragements last episode. That doesn’t happen that often though, and it is a great family AS family–so no religion etc. is needed to bolster it. And I actually agree better that excess than the one displayed on the cartoonish and just stupid MODERN FAMILY. My wife loves PARENTHOOD, in fact, and I rarely miss it and usually am impressed. I enjoyed, of course, Pete’s defense of Al Bundy as out-of-touch in his devotion to the key features of traditional American morality. His (Al’s, not Pete’s) kids, though, were pretty sleazy even by today’s standards, with complementary very severe self-esteem issues. They weren’t raised at all. And Peggy!? Maybe we can move on now to Dan on ROSEANNE–the first couple of seasons, of course.
January 24th, 2013 | 8:12 pm
The rest of the MWC family was either worthless (Peg) or near hopeless and truy amoral (the kids.) I thought that made Al’s situation that much funnier and (in retrospect) his sticking things out more impressive. He was of course terrrible at passing on what was good about his worldview to his kids – at least partly because he mocked and openly resented what was really good about himself in favor of his delusions about his virtues (high school football, etc.) and even more so because it was funnier that way.
January 24th, 2013 | 8:16 pm
Agreed on the excessive issues and plotlines criticism. And I suppose I see the cloying/ridiculous moments as expected hazard that goes with trying to tell a sympathetic story about family without any winking involved.
Having said that, last weeks episode, One step forward two steps back, I thought was one of the best treatments on tv about the political challenges of parents staying on the same page when things get difficult. So like anything else, its strong moments justify in my mind the weaker ones. In light of the fact that most writers and producers aren’t really even trying I suppose I’m more forgiving toward those writers/producers who are.
January 24th, 2013 | 8:47 pm
It may be surprising that I haven’t given MWC the thought it deserves. But one tragedy is that Bud is physically incapable of doing what Al did well, and Al is mentally incapable of…. So the contempt they have for each other gets in the way of even minimalist father/son connections. Al would have enjoyed going to Bud’s games. Pseudo, at this point we just don’t disagree. Max, the autistic guy, is quite a realistic and manly-in-his-own-way character, and I especially appreciate the careful presentation of his parents mostly successful and loving attempts to get how he thinks. His father is as connected with him as much (but not unrealistically more) as a father can be with an autistic son.
January 24th, 2013 | 9:04 pm
Too bad it would have ruined the comedy dynamics of the show to have Al show a genuine interest in his kids. The show is partly supposed to make fun of a mismatched (or maybe too well matched) nuclear family where everybody is all about themselves. Ironically it shows a lot of paternal love from today’s perspective.
January 25th, 2013 | 9:54 am
I didn’t actually say your comments about television were “dumb.” I really do like them better, because they actually say more about our culture than much of what is going on with either party. The politicians are not the leaders, but reflect and often follow the culture. It seems more significant to me to discuss the popular culture than the parties, since a large number of voters can tell you which father figure they like on television and probably why, but almost nothing about either party or any particular politician. The parties are becoming irrelevant to many people I run into from day to day, but a television reference can often work pretty well to get someone to converse about what matters to them. When the Republicans or Democrats become leaders then such conversations will be of more interest.
I agree about Les Miserables, it was a bit like being pummeled into submission by the pace and the music. I haven’t, as a result, been to a movie since, but will check out those you mention. Congrats on your call about Girls, the sad thing is that it isn’t just relationships where that happens, people shift all sorts of relationships both personal and communal with the same shallow nihilism every day.
January 25th, 2013 | 9:58 am
Tim, It’s true that I added “dumb” due to my own self-esteem issues. Thanks for the smart and appreciative comment.
January 25th, 2013 | 10:28 am
1. In answer to the complaint above about the last episode of Parenthood & the judge’s quarters, it seems clear to me that they were writing a final scene for the whole series, in the likely chance it’s not renewed for next season.
2. The absence of religion (save in the title song, and in Jasmine’s mother) in the show is clearly its biggest shortcoming. Far more so than its overly crowded melodrama–it IS a soap opera, after all!
3. Al Bundy and his contemporary equivalents can easily afford a three-bedroom house in almost all of the country. You can buy one in perfectly fine shape for less than $70K where I live.
January 25th, 2013 | 11:00 am
Brian, you’re right on no. 1. That’s why the whole show was so crowded. Like FNL, it’s critically liked but not a popular show.
2. I think that is a shortcoming. Jasmine’s mom could easily be a better character, as well. Jasmine is very classy, though.
3. Same here on Floyd County Georgia. There are people who have worked for a long time comfortable in such places.
January 25th, 2013 | 11:26 am
Concerning the absence of religion in the lives of the Braverman’s I have given credit to the writers as noting the absence in the writing as much as they have.
The first such mention of it was last season when Julia, the younger sister, talking to the prospective mother of their adopted child said in a discussion on the soon to be mother’s catholic faith that the Braverman’s weren’t brought up in a religion.
This season began taking on the topic of religion straight on with Jasmine’s mom being the catalyst for the question of how Crosby and His wife were going to deal with the topic of faith with their son. And that episode I thought gave a creditable account of how the fact that the Braverman’s parent’s neglected to bring them up in a faith was an authentic absence in their upbringing. I recall Crosby even making a complaint to the effect “we were all brought up in a spiritual void.”
I am hopeful that this is going to be a theme that will re-occur over the next couple of seasons as it seems to pop up in interesting ways in later episodes this season. For instance in the same episode dealing with whether the Braverman children should be brought up believing in Santa, we see Adam praying to God to “not take his wife” who is fighting cancer. And, yes, there is something absurd in a family that is passionate about Santa Claus but agnostic on matters of faith.
In an odd way the show seems to be giving religion its due respect but from the point of view of a family that is coming to an awareness of it very late. Perhaps in some ways it’s the best one could expect from a show about a family of nones.
Like I said, I have high hopes that the writers will continue to take on the topic with the kind of maturity that I’ve recognized in their writing so far.
January 25th, 2013 | 11:49 am
Pseudo, Very nice. The kids are dealing with “the hole in the soul” that came from the one major deficiency in the way they raised.
January 25th, 2013 | 9:07 pm
Brian,
“Al Bundy and his contemporary equivalents can easily afford a three-bedroom house in almost all of the country. You can buy one in perfectly fine shape for less than $70K where I live.”
In Chicago in what appears to be a fairly safe neighborhood? Actually, looking it up, Archer Heights looks affordable so it appears you are right.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact