The Rich Are Very Different...

"John Harkness" wrote

> Which is a poor example, because it is a very faithful adaptation of
> an English novel, Ruth Rendell's A Judgement in Stone.

What th' - What difference can that possibly make? Grapes of Wrath was also
a Faithful Adaptation of a Novel in English, yet the premise stands, movies
of any stripe sans gripe render class as stated, and I'm asking for samples
of the opposite if undemocratic plotting, for all plodders, please pay
attention.

American film patronizes proles. Can you think of films which don't? I'll
even accept unfaithful adaptations.



--
Doubting Timus
ubi dubium ibi libertas
timus DeleteThis @nerdnosh.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

Your point (a very good one) seems to extend to films of all countries.
The answer is that audiences are not wealthy and the rich are anything
but philanthropic. The model seems much more the average guy or gal
helping the rich to be kinder.
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

"S D" wrote in message

> Your point (a very good one) seems to extend to films of all countries.
> The answer is that audiences are not wealthy and the rich are anything
> but philanthropic. The model seems much more the average guy or gal
> helping the rich to be kinder.

Yes, or utterly defeating them. The elite, in America at least, have been
resented since Walt Whitman told us Shakespeare was not for Americans since
he made fun of common folk like Bottom and Falstaff and Dogberry and exalted
Prince Hal and all the royals.

La Cérémonie is the only movie I can think of in which the plutocrats are
kindly and helpful and the proles are psychotic and resentful. From the old
B-Westerns, they had this incessant routine of "civilization" in the form of
a lady of fashion (Sarah Miles in Cat Dancing) cast off among the Real World
of the westerner - the classic dialogue such as this with which my brother
and I cracked one another up all our days whenever an item of equiment for
an adventure was found wanting: "Them shoe's won't last an hour out here."

Character development in film (Grace Kelly in High Noon; Claudette Colbert
in It Happened One Night) consists almost entirely, where gender was
represented at all, of the woman of upscale background adapting to the point
of view of the working class hero, her man. High Society was so disparaged
you wonder why so many principals in film were so anxious to join it?

Anybody able to think of even one film in which the ideal is the plutocrat
and the villains are working class?


--
Doubting Timus
ubi dubium ibi libertas
timus DeleteThis @nerdnosh.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

In article , Doubting Timus wrote:

: Yes, or utterly defeating them. The elite, in America at least, have been
: resented since Walt Whitman told us Shakespeare was not for Americans since
: he made fun of common folk like Bottom and Falstaff and Dogberry and exalted
: Prince Hal and all the royals.

You should read de Tocqueville sometime.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
They do not think whom they souse with spray.
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

"Richard Schultz" wrote in message


> You should read de Tocqueville sometime.

You shouldn't presume I haven't.

The fears of the stately baron founders about the "Tyranny of the Masses"
have in fact been realized. In America there are millions of cracker cretin
bobbleheads who have placed one of their number as the mightiest tryant on
earth. It's Alex Hamilton's worst nightmare come true.

The movies, and today all the mayseem press, reflect on and genuflect to
that power.

Back to the question: Which Movies Don't Patronize Proles?



--
Doubting Timus
ubi dubium ibi libertas
timus DeleteThis @nerdnosh.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

"Doubting Timus" wrote:

>Anybody able to think of even one film in which the ideal is the plutocrat
>and the villains are working class?

Norma Shearer in "Marie Antoinette"
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

> Anybody able to think of even one film in which the ideal is the
plutocrat
> and the villains are working class?
>
> Doubting Timus




"OliverTwist"

Dave in Toronto
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

David wrote in article
...
> "Doubting Timus" wrote:
>
> >Anybody able to think of even one film in which the ideal is the
plutocrat
> >and the villains are working class?
>
> Norma Shearer in "Marie Antoinette"
>



Come to think about just about any film about the French revolution. "The
Scarlet Pimpernel" for example.

Dave in Toronto
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

In article , Doubting Timus wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" wrote in message
:

:> You should read de Tocqueville sometime.
:
: You shouldn't presume I haven't.

Your reference to Whitman implies that either you haven't or that you've
forgotten.

: Back to the question: Which Movies Don't Patronize Proles?

Why does any movie in which a proletarian is the hero automatically
patronize them? How is your apparent belief that proletarians cannot live
lives of dignity and honor *not* patronizing to them? Or are you using
"patronize" in some non-standard sense?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.DeleteThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

"David" wrote

> Norma Shearer in "Marie Antoinette"

Good one! The French Revolution, yes. I haven't seen this picture, but for
it to be on all fours as an exception, the nobles must behave nobly and the
peasants must be raging animals and Marie must be a victim without any
supercillious speeches like about eathing cake and such.

There's one other lens through which to look at Rights of Man films,
especially when you see Donald Ogden Stewart as one of the writers.
(Uncredited I see is F Scott Fitzgerald, whose quote gave the name to this
very thread!) It was a staging in history and film for the great
proletariat revolt; there were two occasions in US history when political
parties sought reference and strength abroad, and late in the eighteenth
century Jefferson and Madison used France while George, Hamilton and the
Adams family tended to prefer the class stability of the monarchy of the
British model. Later, in the decade when Mr Stewart was blacklisted, that
argument would use Stalin and the fascists as a subtext.

I am very curious now about how one of the blacklisted writers of the
fifties would have handled the story of the premiere plutocratic princess of
all time.


--
Doubting Timus
ubi dubium ibi libertas
timus DeleteThis @nerdnosh.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

Tony wrote:

> Perhaps they are saying something about thier own children. I haven't seen
> but have been told of a tv series - reality type - about 16th birthday party
> for rich brats, and how it shows them to be much worse than the movie
> stereotypes.


Perhaps you need to see it for yerself rather than
pass on this second-hand information (which you
are wired to believe w/o seeing for yerself).

Bob Tiernan
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

"steve" wrote in message

> Neither of these are american, but Kurosawas hero in "HIgh and Low"

Who dat?
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different... 

In article , Doubting Timus wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" wrote

:> Your reference to Whitman implies that either you haven't or that you've
:> forgotten.
:
: You read like a befuddled teacher of high school English Lit whose last
: clear declarative sentence was in 1958 and who tries to hornswaggle kids
: with big names and obscure references.

You read like someone who doesn't even know what he is saying. Here
is the quote from *you*:

## Yes, or utterly defeating them. The elite, in America at least, have been
## resented since Walt Whitman told us Shakespeare was not for Americans since
## he made fun of common folk like Bottom and Falstaff and Dogberry and exalted
## Prince Hal and all the royals.

: You probably have a lucid explanation for how a Frenchman who visited the US
: for a couple years in the 1830s might have affected the clear declarative
: sentences of the raging poet fifty years later ...

You *might* have a lucid explanation how de Tocqueville's description of the
relations between the rich and the poor in the U.S. fails to predate that
of Whitman, but I very seriously doubt that.

:> Why does any movie in which a proletarian is the hero automatically
:> patronize them? How is your apparent belief that proletarians cannot live
:> lives of dignity and honor -
:
: ...and I'm going to lend you lots of further credit and just consider that
: your are intentionally mangling the point, lord knoweth why. I leave you
: with one bit of helpful advice: use an alias.

Unlike you, I am not afraid of attaching my name to my opinions (although
I can understand why you would be). I believe that I can, on occasion,
produce an argument that is not self-contradictory. You should try it
some time -- it's more fun than you may have been led to believe.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr DeleteThis @mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
 >> Stay informed about: The Rich Are Very Different...