Author |
Message |
Bronxie
| Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 5:14 pm
A wonderful cast of very talented actors. And it will probably earn an Academy nomination or two. But that was my generation being portrayed, and I say,"No way." We were not oblivious to the world around us. We grew up during WWII, and the Korean War ended in '53. during which time women worked the jobs that our military had left. We had Guidance Counselors. We became nurses and teachers until we married and raised families, and afterwards, continued our "careers". We cringed at those TV ads, and thought they were aimed at our mothers. But I won't argue the point..... after all, I didn't go to Wellesley. (bty, the word "Screwing" was not yet in the vernacular of those days.) otoh, I'm sure you'll enjoy this film .....it just got to me personally, and, boy, did I nit-pick.
|
Jbean
| Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 11:50 pm
bronxie, i am so glad to hear that from you about not being oblivious. seemed those women just didn't have a clue. especially BETTY. my friend and i commented to each other that we wouldn't have made it back then. i liked the movie though. i loved julia roberts' character.
|
Marysafan
| Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 6:35 pm
Just returned from seeing this movie with my daughter. Loved it. It was incredibly sad in parts, but very moving overall. I turned to my daughter and said..."Now you see why my generation rebelled so much. We just couldn't live that way." And now she understands much better.
|
Bronxie
| Monday, December 22, 2003 - 5:28 am
"We just couldn't live that way." That's my point exactly, Mary. We did not live that way. Those wars changed everything. We were as unlike our mothers as you Baby Boomers were unlike us. I'm not arguing a 'war of the generations', I'm stating history. If there was any 'war' at all, it was the Veterans coming home and wanting their jobs back - fortunately, the economy was up and new jobs were becoming available. This movie might have been more believable if it were placed in l942 instead or '54.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
| Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:42 am
A big AMEN, Bronxie! I wonder if the writers (whenever possible) ever interview folks who lived though a period in order to get at least the profanity of the era right.
|
Newman
| Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 8:09 pm
Well, if it wasn't "screwing" that they were doing in l953, what was it called? I'm a male baby boomer. Just saw the movie and liked it. Thumbs up. My complaint (and I wonder if I would have had this on my own, had I not read it somewhere) was that all the males were weak and ineffectual types. Not one good male in the movie. I would like to stick up for my gender. Not all of us are lying two timers and I don't think they were that way back in '53 either. (Oh, the kid with the glasses, Connie's boyfriend, seemed to be an ok male, although he looked dorky, which again proves my point). Was confounded by Julia Roberts' choice of boyfriends. She calls the Berkeley guy, Bill, by mistake? And what was the attraction to Bill anyway? Good looking and the only male teacher around? I loved Julia Stiles and all that red lipstick. Kirsten Dunst played a good (b word). Bronxie, thanks for your perspective. I was 3 in l953. It seemed like it fit the era for me, McCarthyism, and "subversives" everywhere, but I certainly wasn't aware of these things at my age.
|
Knightpatti
| Monday, January 12, 2004 - 11:07 pm
I thought the movie was okay. I guess I am more into action movies these days. My daughter and I went to it for a girlie movie, but I was bored.
|
Smokeit
Member
07-08-2003
| Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:59 pm
I liked the movie but still not sure what the point of the movie was.
|
Midlifer
Member
04-16-2003
| Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:24 pm
I just watched it on DVD with my 20 year old daughter. I was born during the 50's, so I can't really relate to what those women were dealing with (my mom was a war bride, and could probably relate better), but I think that the whole point of the movie was that women, in the 50's, were dealing with the post-war confusion. They had had the freedom to work (remember that famous pic of Riveter Rosie?), but then went back home after the WWII boys came home. I think that the group of girls presented different viewpoints. Kirsten was TOTALLY into the suppressed wife mode, BUT Julia Stiles was telling Julia Roberts that she CHOSE to be married and give up the law. I had an interesting discussion with my 20 year old daughter after the movie, and though I was really a young woman in the 60's and 70's (when we had MANY more choices), I, like Julia Stiles, CHOSE to be at home with my children, having given up my job, because I wanted to (as opposed to being expected to), and I have never regretted that decision. I think that, above all, this movie opened up dialogue between women of different generations. Very good movie, IMHO.
|
Tashakinz
Member
11-13-2002
| Monday, March 22, 2004 - 1:02 pm
Hubby and I watched this over the weekend. I'm very glad I didn't live back then knowing what I know now. It's scary to think that this was set less than 20 years before I was born. I would definitely have been labeled as subversive.
|
Spygirl
Member
04-23-2001
| Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:09 pm
I watched this last weekend and like it. It wasn't terrific, but I think it showed (even if in an extreme way) the expectations of women in the 50's...the mindset of what women wanted and what they were expected to do. Very interesting insight into a unique period of time in this country.
|
|