Pleasantville

[DanielJones]

Golly gee wiz.[huh] And here all I was doing was stating things about the visuals & the costumes and how the actors seemed to fit it, not trying to make a political, moral or ethical point.
Call me simple, but I guess I try not to read too much into a story. For me I didn't see an upheaval of the 50's morality and being taken over by the 60's and so on. I just saw a very, very simple story. "All things change." Be it for the good or not, change is unavoidable, and that is that movie in a nutshell. Nothing more, nothing less. But to each their own, as it should be.
Me, I still enjoy the eye candy this movie has to offer.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[Trickeration]

I thought the movie was lovely to look at. Costuming, hair, sets and so on are really well done. And the black-and-white to color scenes were quite artistic. I also liked where Reese Witherspoon's character was commenting on the amount of undergarments a girl was required to wear back then. But, otherwise I felt much the same as MK; I was bothered by the theme/topics of the film.

Trivia: We just recently learned that the scene in the gym was filmed at my daughter's high school, Saint Anthony's in Long Beach. The school has great buildings built in the 1920's and 40's.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I am very pleased with the direction this thread has taken. It's nice to read your thoughts of a film beyond the cursory "I liked it / I didn't like it" depth. There are some very insightful and intelligent commentaries here that I have enjoyed reading. I hope to see more of this in other threads in The Moving Picture Forum. :eusa_clap

 

[Feraud]

Were the social comments observed and described in this thread intended to be made by the filmmakers? Everything we do in life can be construed as a statement, my question is "are these statements intentional?"

There is talk about new vs old, sexual liberation, repression, women's rights, etc. Is anyone aware of a writer, director, or actor that expressed these ideas. Are we reading too much into it? I see film as subjective and we bring our personal experiences and ethics into how much we like or dislike a film. Certain films get canned because a reviewer dislikes an actor's politics, personal life, etc. Other films are highly praised because of the great thought, creativity, and symbolism that goes into a film. I have seen film where the filmmaker did not intend to make big statements or philosophies.

btw, none of this makes anyone's opinion less valid! I am just trying to understand if we will differentiate between a filmmakers intention and our subjective perception of their work.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I am shaking my head in disbelief over what some of you folks have said in this thread, and not just because I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat.

Remember that "Pleasantville" is a comedic FANTASY, people. It's not designed to hold up to any kind of logical scrutiny, nor does it really have a political agenda beyond a very general "knowledge is better than ignorance" concept. To drag in the whole 60s-liberalism-destroyed-the-world harangue seems way off base to me, and bespeaks more of your own worldview than what's really there in the movie.

Me, I like the film a lot. The 50s TV stylization is extremely well done, it's well acted all around, and Randy Newman's score is great. The photography and effects are gorgeous (oh, and to those who have praised the b/w photography: sorry, the film was shot in color and then sequences were digitally desaturated to monochrome)... But the script is problematical: after starting out as a very funny take on a Twilight Zonish plot, the film - even to my eyes - falters badly when it tries to become an overt message picture in the last act. But before it starts to take itself too seriously (and the totally unbelievable transformation of Witherspoon's character at the finale), it's very amusing.

As far as the filmmaker's intent, writer/director Gary Ross followed this film with "Seabiscuit" - an even more overtly retro story that I seem to recall is widely admired here. Or does that film also reflect the death of civilization as we know it?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, there's where you get into the whole philosophical underpinning of modern criticism -- the notion that authorial intent is dead, and that the only perspective that's truly relevant is that of the reader/viewer. Personally, I don't buy into that theory -- but I can understand where it comes from, because it's possible to experience a work very differently from the way the author intended it simply because of one's own personal background or perspective.

But then, I don't buy into the theory that the director is the be-all/end-all author of a film, either -- not unless he or she is also the editor, the screenwriter and acts all the parts. So if a film has not one but many "authors," whose intent matters most?

As for Pleasantville, I think Jake's comments pretty much sum up my own. My objections to Pleasantville are very much the same reasons I can't stand "Grease" in any of its versions -- the basic premise of the story confuses promiscuity with real liberation, which it certainly isn't.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Most art, intentionally or not, is full of symbols relevant to our culture and film is no exception. So, discussing ones impressions and opinions beyond the intent of the filmaker is relevant and interesting. Beside the fact that no one knows the intent of the filmakers.

Stories have perceived meanings beyond the scope of their creators. Criticizing others for bringing their perspective to the table is counter-productive. Challenging others in their assertions with facts and examples is encouraged.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I don't expect us to all agree about everything - that's the point of discussion. (There's a great old Yiddish expression which can be roughly translated as "If everyone's going to agree, why have a committee?") And you're right about our not really knowing the filmmaker's intent - beyond making a profitable film.

I guess I was just surprised at the vehemance of some of the opinions here. I consider Pleasantville a downright innocuous movie, quite enjoyable up to a point, but with a very flawed ending. That it can be seen as a blatant example of things that have gone wrong with our culture since the alleged good-old-days seems pretty odd to me. Com'on, it's just a fantasy set inside a make-believe TV land...

And re Lizzie's comments on Grease, I'm in complete agreement. Ever since I first encountered it (I saw the play's touring company in the early 70s), I have been disgusted that its essential message is to conform, to be a slut if everybody else is. That the godawful film version is now considered a "classic" and widely shown to little kids is far more disastrous to our culture than the very limited success and visibility of Pleasantville!

 

[Feraud]

I hope none of my comments are thought of as critical of anyone's opinion. That is certainly not my intention.
The conversation I am trying to facilitate is something beyond "I like it because..." or not.

My query on the film creators' intention is merely to explore an angle no one has yet brought up. I think it is information worth knowing as it may justify (or not) many expressed opinions. Directors, writers, editors, etc. frequently explain their motivations in interviews and journals.

fftopic: For example, when one discusses Kubrick's "Lolita". Is the film pro child molestation or not? I am sure most people detested the film when it came out. The question begs.. what was Kubrick's point of view towards the novel, etc., etc..

 

[Doctor Strange]

Judging by this interview with writer/producer/director Gary Ross, I guess I must admit that Pleasantville really had a bit more unapologetically liberal agenda than I had personally observed, and I can see how it might be taken more as a thrown-down gauntlet by those of an admittedly conservative persuasion:

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9810/12/austin.ross/

But *I* still like it!

 

[Senator Jack]

I also kept out of this one because I thought the film a bit self-indulgent. The writers took TV-land 50s and used it to ridicule a real society of people, and, by extension, I have to wonder how the film would have come across had the two kids been black and transported into a world of Amos and Andy. I guess I've never been a fan of smug look-backwards-from-the-future commentary, and I suppose this is why I've never like Forrest Gump either.

For anyone who is comfortable with the subject matter, I suggest watching Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice as a bookend companion to Pleasantville. Released in 1969, it shows what happened to married couples when they finally did latch on to the 60s reign of free love. Again, I'm going to warn, THIS IS A VERY ADULT R-RATED PICTURE, and not for everyone, but the ending is incredibly poignant, skewering the very liberation that Pleasantville promoted. (Yes, I did read it as that too.)

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Doctor Strange]

Senator - I have to say that I think Bob & Carol... is a very dated film. It's very observant of its moment, but what if it had been made in 1974 instead of 1968? (Well, it would have been more like The Ice Storm.) While I don't think its sexual politics have aged well, its langauge captures the time pricelessly - "You're a beautiful person. That's beautiful."

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Paul Mazursky's films in general, and I think he's often been very right in terms of depicting the moment accurately. Unfortunately, that sometimes makes his films play like period pieces a bit later - you can't watch "An Unmarried Woman" now without going, "Geez - strident early women's lib, circa 1977."

And I am also in the tiny minority that *hates* Forrest Gump. While I generally like Robert Zemeckis's films, I feel that Gump hit all the wrong notes, and trivialized both itself and the history it tried so hard to co-opt. Oh, there are some good performances and effects there, but I don't believe a minute of it, and the whole idea of Gump being "lucky enough" to be at the center of all these important events and treating his simplicity as a *virtue* just rubbed me the wrong way!

 

[LizzieMaine]

And I am also in the tiny minority that *hates* Forrest Gump. While I generally like Robert Zemeckis's films, I feel that Gump hit all the wrong notes, and trivialized both itself and the history it tried so hard to co-opt. Oh, there are some good performances and effects there, but I don't believe a minute of it, and the whole idea of Gump being "lucky enough" to be at the center of all these important events and treating his simplicity as a *virtue* just rubbed me the wrong way!

I'm totally with you on this one, Doctor -- I'm a big Tom Hanks fan, in general, and Zemeckis is a fine director, but I simply couldn't stand "Forrest Gump." Maybe it's just me, but I think Woody Allen's "Zelig" is a far, far better film, and made far better use of the "nebbish at the center of history" trope. Plus it has a much more gratifying message -- *be yourself.*

 

[Senator Jack]

I could definitely go on about B&C&T&A, Doctor Strange, but I'm unsure if the Lounge is the right venue for such discussion. Captured the time - yes, exactly, but does that make a film dated? This is certainly another thread - one I'd be interested in, but I don't want to hijack this thread.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Doctor Strange]

Okay, we can continue about B&C&T&A off-line if you want.

And Lizzie, I came within an inch of mentioning "Zelig" as a far better use of a similar idea myself, but decided that it was overkill in my message. But I'm really glad to hear to you say it!

 

[Lauren]

Even though I had reservations about Pleasentville, I decided to rent this film after reading so many favorable remarks here.

The look of the movie is great. I am not as fond of the fifties as I am the 30's and 40's but the b&w footage is superb. It looks like it was shot back in the day. The wardrobe by Judianna Makovsky is flawless. Unfortunately for the most part is was what I originally suspected.

My problem with the film is the theme and the motivations of the characters. Reese Witherspoon thinks she is in geekville but looks to bed guys for the thrill of it with no regard for the person. With a madonna-esque attitude she is on a one woman crusade to have everyone having sex with whoever....even if you don't have someone to share it with.

Tobey Maguire who supposedly loves this little make believe world ends up derailing it onto a fast track to the sixties....yet has no regrets.

Joan Allen who plays the mom is taught to masterbate by Reese Witherspoon. She goes right out and has an affair with the soda guy. She leaves her husband without really ever trying to make it work.....and NOBODY in the whole film says "hey, what are you doing?" "Are you sure you want to throw your whole marriage away?" "Maybe you should give it another try" She is even painted in the nude on the side of a building for the whole town to see. No shame for her. The film makers actually try to lead us into thinking she is being a free spirit and exploring herself through art.

I would hope if most people's mom was having that kind of lack of discretion and rationality that someone would intervene.

Those who follow the pied piper turn into color....because they are more "open minded" now. Those who don't are mind numb, close-minded b&w

It is obvious that between the book burning, ordinances prohibiting music and color that the point of view of the storytellers is that of a child of the sixties who hates the establishment, has contempt for the government and despises the values of the fifties.

They made a statement in a pretty little package with beautiful people. The cute little veneer didn't fool me. This movie is a soapbox for those who are of the school of if-it-feels-good-do-it crowd. Their message is much like the words of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young:

And if you can't be, with the one you love
Love the one you're with.

That is EXACTLY what I thought, but you phrased it much better than I ever could :eusa_clap

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

WOW! This thread did take on a life of it's own. Sometimes I watch movies just for the, as others have stated, "eye candy". This was a fun film to watch, I liked it visually.
Now, after reading what MK and others have written, I have a completely different view of this film. I do agree with what you have said, and I'm seeing this movie in an entirely new light. There are some films that should be read into, and others that I think are just fun to watch. If there is an agenda in this film, I really don't like it. Just my opinion. I just wish I could see a film that excites me visually without having some directors or screen writers personal political message shoved in my face. Now I see the real Pleasantville, it's not the kind of message that I like. But, I still think that visually it is great. Too bad I don't agree with the message that it could be sending out. Once again, just my opinion.

 

[Feraud]

Good points Daisy. I think I sometimes ruin the movie viewing experience for my wife and I when I start nit-picking details, motivation, etc.! :eusa_doh:
There is a fine line between enjoying a movie for purely entertainment value and being overly critical of everything one sees. [huh]
I am trying to balance the two.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Good points Daisy. I think I sometimes ruin the movie viewing experience for my wife and I when I start nit-picking details, motivation, etc.! :eusa_doh:
There is a fine line between enjoying a movie for purely entertainment value and being overly critical of everything one sees. [huh]
I am trying to balance the two.

It is such a tough balance. I'd probably go to see so many more movies, if I'd stop reading into them so much.

 

[Hondo]

I’ll go with Doc Strange, I like the film, and feel like the old Star Trek episode with Jeffery Hunter as Christopher Pike sitting in that chair, watching his past life. I won’t go into much details, I agree with most here, it has a nicee little feel to it plus you get Don Knotts for one final look:eusa_clap