Sorry if this is a discussion that's died down already, but I was
having some trouble sending to the list... (thanks, Laura, for fixing it!)
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Tanya Wood wrote:
> What I'd like to take issue with is the romantic aspect of the movie,
> which, alongside the change in Ellie's perception of religious people
> (from lunatic and hostile to warm and supportive), seemed to me to be
> sentimental, and a "soft sell" to a cinema audience that wouldn't find
> a Susan Calvin (or a very probably queer Jodie Foster) sympathetic.
I haven't read the book, but from what I've heard, the Joss-Arroway
romantic thing happens there as well, so it's not just to sell to a
cinema audience or to counter rumors of Foster being a lesbian (oh,
that would be happy, though, if she were).
But that's not your real point, I think.
> The
> protective arm of the strong but tender male character as Ellie stumbles
> out of the halls of the inquiry seemed a walking cliche and an indication
> that Ellie alone is not quite up to the demands of public life.
I felt that the relationship came out of nowhere, but I don't think it
was detrimental to her character. Her trip, and the reaction to it,
shook the very core assumptions that she'd based her life on--mainly,
that you can prove -everything-. I wouldn't have found it believable
if they had presented her as being able to stand completely alone
through that kind of an experience. Pluswhich, Ellie and Palmer are
good counterpoints to each other, and I think that made the movie just
a little richer.
-- Susan
susan@apocalypse.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why do we keep shrieking when we mean soft things, we should be
whispering all the time . . . Because I'm afraid of the dark without you
close to me." --100,000 Fireflies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:28 PDT