Wonderful World of Academia: Love means never having to say I'm sorry.
Welcome to a new series of ramblings. Academic ramblings, in this case. Meaning that I will ramble about something learned or discussed in class, usually something that totally fazed me, confused me or pissed me off. Today: my Wednesday class on romance movies.
First session after three sessions of reading (de Rougement, Lacan *gags, Luhmann *gags²²³³) that had a presentation. Topic was Love Story. Anyone here seen it? Read the book? Alright, not a problem if you haven't (although it is a pop culture classic). Most of the class didn't seem to have either seen or read it. Which was okay since there were pivotal scenes in the presentation.
Presentation itself was okay, a couple analyses were alright but I definitely did not agree with Oliver having liberated himself from his father in the course of the movie/book. The whole point of the story is that he can't escape his father (and doesn't even want to), except probably in the movie ending but even that is open enough that it could also be redemption for Mr. Barret and Oliver. However, that is arguable and is not the point of this entry.
The point is that I never realized how bad Love Story is from a feminist point of view until I actually spelt it out in class. I just had a couple feminist analysis thoughts and as I kept talking I realized that a book I actually liked is crap from a feminits point of view :S Because, see, even the professor said he doesn't think Jenny actually had any other function than reuniting Oliver with his father. I partially agree and I'd even add that letting Jenny die was... not the best solution.
In fact, it almost seems like punishment. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Segal actually intended that but it does seem in odd when analysed in contrast/together with the fact that for quite a time, Jenny is the couple's breadwinner (while Oliver attends law school), something that, correct if I'm wrong, isn't actually mainstream in the 1960s. She's also outspoken, puts Oliver in his place more often than one and is pretty much a heap more intelligent than him. She's also more rational and practical than him. In short, she is the better (okay, cooler) person. And then she has to die. That does look weird, doesn't it?
Anyway, what do you think? Makes sense? Load of crap? Tell me. And visit again when we'll talk about The Graduate and the dichotomy of whore and saint or what exactly constitutes the term "text". You don't want to miss it!
First session after three sessions of reading (de Rougement, Lacan *gags, Luhmann *gags²²³³) that had a presentation. Topic was Love Story. Anyone here seen it? Read the book? Alright, not a problem if you haven't (although it is a pop culture classic). Most of the class didn't seem to have either seen or read it. Which was okay since there were pivotal scenes in the presentation.
Presentation itself was okay, a couple analyses were alright but I definitely did not agree with Oliver having liberated himself from his father in the course of the movie/book. The whole point of the story is that he can't escape his father (and doesn't even want to), except probably in the movie ending but even that is open enough that it could also be redemption for Mr. Barret and Oliver. However, that is arguable and is not the point of this entry.
The point is that I never realized how bad Love Story is from a feminist point of view until I actually spelt it out in class. I just had a couple feminist analysis thoughts and as I kept talking I realized that a book I actually liked is crap from a feminits point of view :S Because, see, even the professor said he doesn't think Jenny actually had any other function than reuniting Oliver with his father. I partially agree and I'd even add that letting Jenny die was... not the best solution.
In fact, it almost seems like punishment. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Segal actually intended that but it does seem in odd when analysed in contrast/together with the fact that for quite a time, Jenny is the couple's breadwinner (while Oliver attends law school), something that, correct if I'm wrong, isn't actually mainstream in the 1960s. She's also outspoken, puts Oliver in his place more often than one and is pretty much a heap more intelligent than him. She's also more rational and practical than him. In short, she is the better (okay, cooler) person. And then she has to die. That does look weird, doesn't it?
Anyway, what do you think? Makes sense? Load of crap? Tell me. And visit again when we'll talk about The Graduate and the dichotomy of whore and saint or what exactly constitutes the term "text". You don't want to miss it!