Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 8 Editor's Choice: 1
-
an interpretation can be meaningful even if it's not true
[Read the article: Pride and pathetic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i may not be 18-25 or particularly "romantic", but i disagree with ms. fattore--this movie hit my buttons. despite the fact i'm single, 30-something, and have cats (oh, horrors!), i've also read every word jane austen has ever written and seen every film interpretation of pride and prejudice i've been able to get my eyes on (direct interpretations of the novel from 1940, 1952, 1958, 1967, 1980, 1995, and 2005, many other indirect interpretations, like "bridget jones" and "bride and prejudice," etc).
i wholeheartedly agree that this particular interpretation is not true to the novel. but i'm thankful for that instead of resentful. why on earth would anyone believe a film could (or should) capture the wit and satire of an austen novel? even if a film truthfully portrayed austen's dialogue, it's the reader's juicy internalized interpretation of her dialogue, and her subsequent reflections on humankind, that makes the novel fulfilling, or even relevant in modern society.
imagine standing in the most beautiful vista you've ever seen. (the grand canyon? the alps? the dead sea?). now think back to the photographs you took while visiting that vista. did they come close to capturing the all-encompasing reality that you experienced at that one moment in time? i expect not.
go a step further--if ansel adams (insert any other extraordinary photographer) was standing next to you, would they posess the skills to fully capture your perspective and experience? again, i expect not.
this is the limitation of film--film is static. words, on the other hand, because they are interpretive, are alive. every reader of pride and prejudice (millions of them? billions?) has had a distinct interpretation of the novel. yet, when condensed to film, there is only one visual/auditory interpretation--that of the writer or editor or director or director of photography, etc.
we must be content to view film interpretations of the novels we love as we view photographs of the places or people we love--as a relatively simple interpretation of (or insight into) the heart of the subject. i've learned to be inspired by other people's photographs, and their interpretation of the things i hold dear. instead of feigning offense because one person's interpretation doesn't synch with mine, i've learned to celebrate the enrichment another person's perspective brings to my understanding of the subject.
while this most recent pride and prejudice may have taken greater liberties than many of those before it, i believe it also provided a unique perspective on the novel. through the first half of the movie, i felt assalted by the film's energy, but slowly got drawn into appreciating the elements that were different (and decidedly more modern) about this version--the exaggerations inherent in the actors' appearances, elizabeth's precious rolling of her eyes as she enters darcy's estate for the first time, etc. but these details enhanced my fantasy about the novel instead of limiting it.
maybe all of us jane austen-lovers should just spend a weekend taking in the album of film devoted to pride and prejudice. until then, perhaps we can agree to absorb each interpretation as it comes along--because i'm sure each one we absorb inspires us to think again about what we loved about the novel in the first place.
at least, i know i've picked my well-worn copy up for another read.
-
hey there, we're not just knocked up anymore...
[Read the article: The boring 20s: No sex for you!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]less access to birth control (pre and post shag), yes, probably a partial cause.
but don't discount the many of us women in our 20s have enough financial security to actually CHOOSE TO HAVE KIDS ON OUR OWN!!!! yes, believe it or not, some of us prefer to parent without a partner. and are lucky enough to be able to do it on our own.
hmmm, i may be on to something. maybe those nice folks in red should focus on increasing the income disparity between men and women even more, before all us 20-something women get too uppity and independent.
aureliana
-
sometimes flesh just don't look as good in white
[Read the article: Big, beautiful and not white]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]as a freckled and ghostly white woman, i can tell you that a little extra flesh on my friends of color looks WAY better than it does on me. not because of size or shape per say, but because (in my observation) darker skin tones make flesh look a lot firmer and smoother. on the other hand, when i put on a couple extra pounds you can see cellulite all over my body from a block away!
i guess i think that what looks curvy and beautiful on my black or indian friends looks like dimpled, unhealthy flesh on me!
maybe curves just look better on women who aren't transluscent...
-
deface?
[Read the article: "Stripperific" Britney's back]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ummmm.... since when is shaving one's head or getting a tattoo considered "defacement" of one's body? granted, she may have not been in the best frame of mind to choose these actions, and may have regretted the choice after the fact, but it is unfair to point at the two actions as "defacement" in and of themselves.
frankly, i was surprised to read such a knee-jerk reaction to aesthetic choices that have only become more and more mainstream among women. i've shaved my head and i've sat for 50 hours of tattooing. both choices were adornments of celebration, not desperation.
by no means could a shorn head or a tattoo be "defacement" but to the most close-minded of people. unless you're also opposed to boob jobs, hair coloring, ear piercing, body sculpting support hose, makeup... ok, you get the idea.