On A Lighter Note
"Not all who wander are aimless. Especially not those who seek truth beyond tradition, beyond definition, beyond the image."
I had a night off for the first time in a while, and I chose to watch Mona Lisa Smile for the first time. Frankly I cannot believe I hadn't seen it before. For those of you who have never seen the movie before, it stars Julia Roberts as Katherine Watson. Watson is a "free-thinking art history professor who teaches conservative 1950's Wellesley girls to question their traditional societal roles" (Quote: imdb). It's a lot like Dead Poets' Society, but with all women.
The sociocultural aspect of the 1950's has always fascinated me, not to mention the gender-normative role designated for women during this time. College for women in the 1950's as limbo before getting married seems like such a foreign concept to us now. It's so interesting at the change in times, the horror it brings to people my own age and younger that women could possibly ever be expected to think only what she is told. I love when Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) confronts Katherine Watson for judging her for chosing to get married and settle down, rather than accept her spot at Yale Law:
Joan Brandwyn: "It was my choice, not to go. He would have supported it."
Katherine Watson: "But you don't have to choose!"
Joan: "No, I have to. I want a home, I want a family! That's not something I'll sacrifice."
Katherine: "No one's asking you to sacrifice that, Joan. I just want you to understand that you can do both."
Joan: "Do you think I'll wake up one morning and regret not being a lawyer?"
Katherine: "Yes, I'm afraid that you will."
Joan: "Not as much as I'd regret not having a family, not being there to raise them. I know exactly what I'm doing and it doesn't make me any less smart. This must seem terrible to you."
Katherine: "I didn't say that."
Joan: "Sure you did. You always do. You stand in class and tell us to look beyond the image, but you don't. To you a housewife is someone who sold her soul for a center hall colonial. She has no depth, no intellect, no interests. You're the one who said I could do anything I wanted. This is what I want."
I loved this part! Not only does Joan call Katherine out for judging her, but she reminds Katherine that though she has chosen to fulfill the role that society has laid out for her, she has not lost any of her intelligence or strength. Though Joan is frustrating as a character because she does not understand that it is not an "either or" situation (between raising and family and becoming a lawyer), she reminds Katherine that her choice is also not an "either or" between her intellect and a domestic life.
One thing we should always ask ourselves when analyzing a movie or piece of literature is why must the character die if he or she bites the big one? _ Sometimes it's as simple as their death becomes the thing to be avenged. In the end of Mona Lisa Smile, however, Watson leaves Wellesley to explore Europe. It's interesting that the film should end this way because it means she can not exist within this film world; this society, or at least Wellesley, is not ready for her progressive thinking ,and so she must leave and go to Europe - a place of more feminist values at the time.
Studying how culture changes over time and affects our day to day life has always interested me, but I loved this movie for more than that. I usually judge movies based on the actors and the plot line; how believable the actors' performances are, or if the plot captures and maintains my interest throughout the film are always large factors in my overall impression of movies. I've never been one for art, specifically modern art. I never could quite grasp what the artists were trying to tell me, what emotions they were trying to etch into the canvas. The only art that has ever truly spoken to me was Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night Over the Rhone".
Watson says to her students about Van Goph: "He painted what he felt, not what he saw. People didn't understand, to them it seemed childlike and crude. It took years for them to recognize his actual technique. To see the way his brush strokes seemed to make the night sky move. Yet, he never sold a painting in his lifetime. This is his self-portrait. There's no camouflage, no romance. Honesty." The brushstrokes and Van Goph's sudden use of color always strike me and the painting, even a Google image of it, brings tears to my eyes. I agree with Katherine Watson; Van Goph's paintings always seem to be surprisingly honest to me. This piece in particular speaks of modernity and the harshness of the artificial light that's being produced by the new electric lamps, yet creates movement and a romantic notion that grasps at a time past. It evokes strong emotions in me, yet it is the only piece of art to ever do so to me. I've cried my fair share at theatrical performances, films, concerts, operas, ballets... I wonder what other art could inspire me like this piece does, that I am just simply unaware of?
When Katherine Watson tells the girls: "Look beyond the paint. Let us try to open our minds to a new idea", it got me thinking. I suppose that was her intention, to make the girls think for themselves. It made me ask what I am missing out on though, by closing my mind off from art. Am I missing potential and beauty in something that I just simply cannot understand? Beyond the paint, beyond the canvas, there is more than beauty - there is an idea.
In the movie, the idea that women could exist outside their traditional, gender-normative roles was merely that - an idea. The idea was a spectre or a shadow, imitating but forced to exist outside the generally accepted views of reality. What else is forced to imitate reality, yet forced to remain just outside the barriers of acceptance, merely because we are not prepared to take a leap of faith yet? For years women having careers was a rarity, taboo in a society centralized around the nuclear family and a steadfast domestic setup. It's unheard of now, for sixty percent of American women have a higher income than men. Years from now, what will we see as silly?
I had a night off for the first time in a while, and I chose to watch Mona Lisa Smile for the first time. Frankly I cannot believe I hadn't seen it before. For those of you who have never seen the movie before, it stars Julia Roberts as Katherine Watson. Watson is a "free-thinking art history professor who teaches conservative 1950's Wellesley girls to question their traditional societal roles" (Quote: imdb). It's a lot like Dead Poets' Society, but with all women.
The sociocultural aspect of the 1950's has always fascinated me, not to mention the gender-normative role designated for women during this time. College for women in the 1950's as limbo before getting married seems like such a foreign concept to us now. It's so interesting at the change in times, the horror it brings to people my own age and younger that women could possibly ever be expected to think only what she is told. I love when Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) confronts Katherine Watson for judging her for chosing to get married and settle down, rather than accept her spot at Yale Law:
Joan Brandwyn: "It was my choice, not to go. He would have supported it."
Katherine Watson: "But you don't have to choose!"
Joan: "No, I have to. I want a home, I want a family! That's not something I'll sacrifice."
Katherine: "No one's asking you to sacrifice that, Joan. I just want you to understand that you can do both."
Joan: "Do you think I'll wake up one morning and regret not being a lawyer?"
Katherine: "Yes, I'm afraid that you will."
Joan: "Not as much as I'd regret not having a family, not being there to raise them. I know exactly what I'm doing and it doesn't make me any less smart. This must seem terrible to you."
Katherine: "I didn't say that."
Joan: "Sure you did. You always do. You stand in class and tell us to look beyond the image, but you don't. To you a housewife is someone who sold her soul for a center hall colonial. She has no depth, no intellect, no interests. You're the one who said I could do anything I wanted. This is what I want."
I loved this part! Not only does Joan call Katherine out for judging her, but she reminds Katherine that though she has chosen to fulfill the role that society has laid out for her, she has not lost any of her intelligence or strength. Though Joan is frustrating as a character because she does not understand that it is not an "either or" situation (between raising and family and becoming a lawyer), she reminds Katherine that her choice is also not an "either or" between her intellect and a domestic life.
One thing we should always ask ourselves when analyzing a movie or piece of literature is why must the character die if he or she bites the big one? _ Sometimes it's as simple as their death becomes the thing to be avenged. In the end of Mona Lisa Smile, however, Watson leaves Wellesley to explore Europe. It's interesting that the film should end this way because it means she can not exist within this film world; this society, or at least Wellesley, is not ready for her progressive thinking ,and so she must leave and go to Europe - a place of more feminist values at the time.
Studying how culture changes over time and affects our day to day life has always interested me, but I loved this movie for more than that. I usually judge movies based on the actors and the plot line; how believable the actors' performances are, or if the plot captures and maintains my interest throughout the film are always large factors in my overall impression of movies. I've never been one for art, specifically modern art. I never could quite grasp what the artists were trying to tell me, what emotions they were trying to etch into the canvas. The only art that has ever truly spoken to me was Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night Over the Rhone".
Watson says to her students about Van Goph: "He painted what he felt, not what he saw. People didn't understand, to them it seemed childlike and crude. It took years for them to recognize his actual technique. To see the way his brush strokes seemed to make the night sky move. Yet, he never sold a painting in his lifetime. This is his self-portrait. There's no camouflage, no romance. Honesty." The brushstrokes and Van Goph's sudden use of color always strike me and the painting, even a Google image of it, brings tears to my eyes. I agree with Katherine Watson; Van Goph's paintings always seem to be surprisingly honest to me. This piece in particular speaks of modernity and the harshness of the artificial light that's being produced by the new electric lamps, yet creates movement and a romantic notion that grasps at a time past. It evokes strong emotions in me, yet it is the only piece of art to ever do so to me. I've cried my fair share at theatrical performances, films, concerts, operas, ballets... I wonder what other art could inspire me like this piece does, that I am just simply unaware of?
When Katherine Watson tells the girls: "Look beyond the paint. Let us try to open our minds to a new idea", it got me thinking. I suppose that was her intention, to make the girls think for themselves. It made me ask what I am missing out on though, by closing my mind off from art. Am I missing potential and beauty in something that I just simply cannot understand? Beyond the paint, beyond the canvas, there is more than beauty - there is an idea.
In the movie, the idea that women could exist outside their traditional, gender-normative roles was merely that - an idea. The idea was a spectre or a shadow, imitating but forced to exist outside the generally accepted views of reality. What else is forced to imitate reality, yet forced to remain just outside the barriers of acceptance, merely because we are not prepared to take a leap of faith yet? For years women having careers was a rarity, taboo in a society centralized around the nuclear family and a steadfast domestic setup. It's unheard of now, for sixty percent of American women have a higher income than men. Years from now, what will we see as silly?
Comments
Post a Comment