Once upon a time, it was widely accepted at all levels of
American society, at least above the very lowest, that girls
should be raised to be what were called "young ladies." Exactly
what qualities this category of persons comprised varied along
with changes in the wider culture, but so long as young-ladyhood
remained a social ideal, it included ideas of sexual modesty
coupled with personal and social graces thought to be desirable
in attracting and keeping a husband. It was a often a fine line
between attractiveness and modesty, but all girls were taught to
walk it. 'Tis now more than 40 years since the lady was killed
off in an avowedly political act by a new generation of feminists
who saw the conventions and manners that went into the ladylike
ideal as a form of oppression by an unjust masculine power-elite.
Like most political progressives, the feminists determinedly
closed their eyes to any non-oppressive reasons why there might
have been ladies in the first place, with the result that
post-feminist women, delivered from the old social necessity of
being ladies, have often found themselves bemused by the new
social necessity of not being ladies. What were they
supposed to be instead? Men?
That bemusement is at the heart of the Sex and the
City phenomenon, about which I will have nothing further to
say here. But there are many other and more subtle cultural and
cinematic illustrations of the ways in which the instincts and
impulses that would once have been channeled into ladylike
behavior have had to be suppressed or turned in upon themselves
where they have not been enthusiastically politicized. Women of
the elite classes, in particular, tended to become neurotic in
characteristic ways, many of which are on display for our
inspection in Nicole Holofcener's Please Give, a funny
and at times touching but ultimately unsatisfying movie about the
sense of malaise and unhappiness that lingers among privileged
American females who are not Sex-and-the-City-style
glamorpusses living fabulous and fabulously fantastical
"lifestyles." Please Give is Sex and the City
for real people.
Mainly it is about Kate (Catherine Keener), a Manhattan
antique-dealer who, in partnership with her husband, Alex (Oliver
Platt), specializes in the domestic furniture and bric-a-brac of
the mid-20th century -- which, whether significantly or not, also
happens to be the period of the demise of the lady. Among the
ways in which the ladies of that era were expected to confirm
their ladyhood was a certain amount of charitable work on behalf
of those not fortunate enough to belong to the classes from which
ladies were drawn. Now, of course, it is seldom called charity,
but as "volunteering" to "work with" the physically, mentally, or
socially "challenged," it is still around, and Kate has a
yearning she scarcely understands herself to get "involved" with
such work. Only she finds she can't. Her all-embracing compassion
for the world's victims becomes so overwhelming whenever she is
required to get close to them that she retreats to the no-longer
ladies' room to weep.
This compassion begins to extend even to those from whom
she and Alex buy their merchandise, mostly the children of
old-folks who, having acquired their furniture fifty or sixty
years ago, are now dying off. The children have no idea what it
is worth. It looks like useless junk to them, and they are glad
to have Kate and Alex take it off their hands -- even when they
know it can be sold at a large mark-up to a growing army of
collectors. Kate is starting to feel that she is taking advantage
of these people. To add to her guilt, the family have already
bought the apartment of the old woman (Ann Guilbert) who lives
next door to them and so are waiting for her to die in order to
knock through the walls and expand their own place into hers.
Kate and Alex have a 15-year-old daughter, Abby (Sarah Steele),
with skin and weight problems and a chip on her shoulder. She is
constantly being embarrassed by her mother's generosity to
beggars in the street. So, on occasion, is Kate herself, as when
she offers money to a scruffy-looking black man who disdainfully
informs her he is waiting for a table at a swanky
restaurant.
Andra, the old lady next door, has two granddaughters, one
good, one bad, whom she had to take in when their mother
committed suicide some years before. Now the girls live together
in another apartment and visit grandmother to help her with the
things that have become difficult for her, including her
shopping. Rebecca (Rebecca Hall), the good one, is a mammography
technician who does most of the work of looking after Andra --
not that Andra appears the least bit grateful. The bad
granddaughter, Mary (Amanda Peet), is a beauty consultant at a
"spa" and appears as eager for her grandmother to die as the
neighbors are. On one hilarious occasion, Kate and Alex have
Andra and the granddaughters over for dinner, and Mary asks them,
in front of her grandmother, what are their plans for the old
woman's apartment. They try awkwardly to change the subject,
insisting in the sort of mannerly way that the ladies of Andra's
youth might have done that they have hardly even thought about
it, but Mary in the name of honesty plows ahead: "They will gut
it. But you will be dead, grandma, so you won't care."
There you have the movie in essence. Hardly anything
happens in it. Alex has a brief affair with Mary; Rebecca may or
may not have found a boyfriend. Grandma dies, as expected.
Throughout, the women are haunted by the spectres of lonely
death, breast cancer, family instability and indiscipline,
suicide and the putative sufferings of those who lack their
advantages. As a result, Kate and Rebecca live in a more or less
constant state of depression while Andra, Mary, and Abby are all
more or less constantly angry. Here, Ms. Holofcener appears to be
saying, is the life of women today. Or at least of women who
belong to the class who would once have been expected to be
ladylike and now are expected not to be. None of them can figure
life out. And nor, apparently, can Nicole Holofcener. Depending
on how compelling a bit of data you find that, you may enjoy this
movie.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Mr. Bowman, if you look at what are considered "modern" or
"contemporary" movies and entertainments; the common element
shared is a lack of a religious/spritual center in the
characters.
All of these films and TV shows are rudderless and meander about
as do the characters. They are all in search of a "meaning";
hollow neurotic objects d' art fixated on "finding" themselves.
Is it no wonder that these films are shirked by the general
public? The greater tragedy is the artistic nihlism behind the
project. Here is a true window into the director/writer's soul
and the bankrupt intellectuation of art.
Seek| 6.2.10 @ 12:14PM
Care to list the overtly religious films made during the "Golden
Age?" It's a pretty short list. At any rate, any number of
contemporary filmmakers (e.g., M. Night Shamalyan) have made the
existence of God a central theme in their work.
There is nothing "nihilistic" about a film simply because it
isn't explicitly religious. And religious or not, the films of
today aren't chasing away the general public. The "Spider Man"
movies, for example, weren't religious and they did about $750
million each.
Bill| 6.2.10 @ 3:10PM
Modern movies are noteworthy for the commonly-seen theme of
emptiness where standards once resided. People do virtuous things
in the movies, but those virtuous acts don't ring true because
they vindicate nothing. That's why it's so particularly painful
to watch modern war movies, for example, even when they're
well-made. There's no reason for heroism. I bet in this movie,
Please Give, the viewer can't come up with a convincing reason
other than mere politesse for why it's a bad thing to discuss
what will happen to grandma's apartment after she dies.
Mike Giles| 6.2.10 @ 3:16PM
I don't think it was about "Golden Age" films being overtly
religious. But they did have moral centers. They had generally
understood codes they - and the audience - understood they were
supposed to abide by.
Alan Brooks| 6.2.10 @ 7:49PM
Men will continue to entirely dominate women, as men will use
force to have at women.
Wont change in my lifetime. As for you?:
you all have to do your own research; but I think the older AS
people will see very little or no improvement in the culture or
in private relations.
Honey| 6.2.10 @ 10:54PM
Women have guns, dummy.
Palin has nothing to fear from that POS who moved next door to
her.
Janis| 6.2.10 @ 8:50PM
Watch Pre-Code movies now...it is nothing. They could remake them
now with a PG13 rating.
Oooppps better not give Hollywood the idea, they already ruin
classics by remaking them.
The Women for example....
Norma Shearer was kind of a boring actress, but no one could take
the place of Rosalind Russell.
PolishKnight| 6.3.10 @ 10:10AM
I've rented few films because of James' reviews and this will
need to be one of them.
If I could quibble a bit with James, I remember my grandmother
and she wasn't an ideal lady. That doesn't mean I don't respect
her. I'm just observing that she was on the same emotional roller
coaster that James observes the filmmaker may think most women
are on today.
Let's take James observation further: 50 years ago times were
tough for some and easy for others. Just as today. Little has
changed in that regard. This is because feminism changed less
than it's given credit for. Most women still crave men to be
breadwinners and provide additional status for themselves even if
she is a nobel prize winner _and_ a CEO. However, feminism
stripped away not only a societal expectation for a woman to act
"ladylike" but also to respect men who were gentlemen. If a man
today lives up to the same standards as the late 1950's, he at
best will be tolerated since feminism taught generations of
women, across nearly all socio-economic backgrounds, that such
men were oppressors. In ages past, men who sacrificed their youth
and health to support their families were worshipped. No more.
They're plow mules.
The women of my grandmother's generation could connect and
sympathize with the people in their families and neighborhood.
Today, women abstract their sentiments both relieving them of
personal responsibility and at the same time undermining their
emotional connection.
It's rather funny that this film is set in NYC when most people's
personal experience demonstrates that most people in the city
have been vapidly materialistic much like the antogonists of the
film. At best, their commitment to charity has been an excuse to
socialize and wear expensive designer dresses. This is nothing
new. It's been like that for the past half century.
What's sad is that the rest of the country is increasingly
looking like that too.
Kevin M. McKinnon| 6.2.10 @ 8:13AM
Mr. Bowman, if you look at what are considered "modern" or "contemporary" movies and entertainments; the common element shared is a lack of a religious/spritual center in the characters.
All of these films and TV shows are rudderless and meander about as do the characters. They are all in search of a "meaning"; hollow neurotic objects d' art fixated on "finding" themselves.
Is it no wonder that these films are shirked by the general public? The greater tragedy is the artistic nihlism behind the project. Here is a true window into the director/writer's soul and the bankrupt intellectuation of art.
Seek| 6.2.10 @ 12:14PM
Care to list the overtly religious films made during the "Golden Age?" It's a pretty short list. At any rate, any number of contemporary filmmakers (e.g., M. Night Shamalyan) have made the existence of God a central theme in their work.
There is nothing "nihilistic" about a film simply because it isn't explicitly religious. And religious or not, the films of today aren't chasing away the general public. The "Spider Man" movies, for example, weren't religious and they did about $750 million each.
Bill| 6.2.10 @ 3:10PM
Modern movies are noteworthy for the commonly-seen theme of emptiness where standards once resided. People do virtuous things in the movies, but those virtuous acts don't ring true because they vindicate nothing. That's why it's so particularly painful to watch modern war movies, for example, even when they're well-made. There's no reason for heroism. I bet in this movie, Please Give, the viewer can't come up with a convincing reason other than mere politesse for why it's a bad thing to discuss what will happen to grandma's apartment after she dies.
Mike Giles| 6.2.10 @ 3:16PM
I don't think it was about "Golden Age" films being overtly religious. But they did have moral centers. They had generally understood codes they - and the audience - understood they were supposed to abide by.
Alan Brooks| 6.2.10 @ 7:49PM
Men will continue to entirely dominate women, as men will use force to have at women.
Wont change in my lifetime. As for you?:
you all have to do your own research; but I think the older AS people will see very little or no improvement in the culture or in private relations.
Honey| 6.2.10 @ 10:54PM
Women have guns, dummy.
Palin has nothing to fear from that POS who moved next door to her.
Janis| 6.2.10 @ 8:50PM
Watch Pre-Code movies now...it is nothing. They could remake them now with a PG13 rating.
Oooppps better not give Hollywood the idea, they already ruin classics by remaking them.
The Women for example....
Norma Shearer was kind of a boring actress, but no one could take the place of Rosalind Russell.
PolishKnight| 6.3.10 @ 10:10AM
I've rented few films because of James' reviews and this will need to be one of them.
If I could quibble a bit with James, I remember my grandmother and she wasn't an ideal lady. That doesn't mean I don't respect her. I'm just observing that she was on the same emotional roller coaster that James observes the filmmaker may think most women are on today.
Let's take James observation further: 50 years ago times were tough for some and easy for others. Just as today. Little has changed in that regard. This is because feminism changed less than it's given credit for. Most women still crave men to be breadwinners and provide additional status for themselves even if she is a nobel prize winner _and_ a CEO. However, feminism stripped away not only a societal expectation for a woman to act "ladylike" but also to respect men who were gentlemen. If a man today lives up to the same standards as the late 1950's, he at best will be tolerated since feminism taught generations of women, across nearly all socio-economic backgrounds, that such men were oppressors. In ages past, men who sacrificed their youth and health to support their families were worshipped. No more. They're plow mules.
The women of my grandmother's generation could connect and sympathize with the people in their families and neighborhood. Today, women abstract their sentiments both relieving them of personal responsibility and at the same time undermining their emotional connection.
It's rather funny that this film is set in NYC when most people's personal experience demonstrates that most people in the city have been vapidly materialistic much like the antogonists of the film. At best, their commitment to charity has been an excuse to socialize and wear expensive designer dresses. This is nothing new. It's been like that for the past half century.
What's sad is that the rest of the country is increasingly looking like that too.
dk| 7.1.10 @ 4:47AM
beijing massage