|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Apr 21, 2019 22:52:13 GMT
I just found this thread on twitter. I didn't read The Guardian's article yet but I agree with the poster in general. Why people wouldn't relate to Fleabag's story? Even if you have a totally different background you can empathize with people you don't know. I found this notion very strange. You have to see yourself reflected in the character to feel someting for it? One of the comments that generally leaves me perplexed is that you can't enjoy some movie/show because there are no likable characters and nobody to root for. It is not strange then that they think that you can't play a villain (Assange, for instance) without being somehow a villain yourself. Now, I don't think they're just millenials who use this argument. The comments on Patrick Melrose from people who didn't want to watch it were of this type, we don't need another posh story, it was almost as if because he was a posh, white male child he deserved to be raped and it didn't matter what happened to him. The Guardian article |
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 22, 2019 1:55:47 GMT
The other day I saw another thread about this article. They were criticizing it, too and someone actually named Patrick Melrose but claimed PM didn't received the same negative treatment than Fleabag because it was about a man. I agree that the piece opinions on The Guardian were more favorable (in part because the one I remember and the popular one was by a much more intelligent writer who actually lived what PM lived. So it was indeed very personal to the author even when he wasn't "posh" himself) but I'm sure that she didn't read the disturbing comments on Twitter (some by "verified" people) saying they didn't care for raped kids if they are white posh boys. I think even The Guardian didn't dare to publish a sick take like that but without doubt there are a few sick individuals working on the press right now that gladly would had write it! In this case, it wasn't a misogynist issue (as the author of the comment thought) it's just that the theme in PM is much more delicate and editors aren't stupid enough to publish something like that! Not yet!
|
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 22, 2019 3:40:23 GMT
I read the article earlier today, and it immediately seemed to me to be written by someone who has never studied literature. The novels we read, as well as the plays, tv shows and movies we watch, count on all of us being able to relate to the themes being presented. Any kind of art, really, needs to do that. Otherwise, it has failed.
I remember when I studied King Lear and I was able to relate to the family dynamics of a king and his daughters - and I couldn’t be further removed from royalty! A more recent example for me would be Sex and the City. The characters lived a an entirely different universe from mine, and our lifestyles could not have been any different, and yet I could relate to almost everything that happened on that show. Whether it’s Shakespeare or Fleabag or Patrick Melrose, universal themes are there for everyone to relate.
I also found it funny that the writer of the article kept saying that Fleabag’s dad had a huge house (so, therefore, she shouldn’t have any problems??). I didn’t think the house was all that impressive! And anyway, they often film made-for-tv movies where I live, and I can sometimes recognize the locations they use. Those movies always have the ordinary characters living in houses that are, in reality, multi-million dollar mansions from the wealthiest neighbourhoods in my city. How does a struggling cupcake baker afford a house like that?? It’s show business and make-believe!
|
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Apr 22, 2019 4:10:19 GMT
I watched a panel of folks reviewing PM and they were so condescending about it b/c Patrick was a rich white boy and they just couldn’t relate (okay), but strangely they didn’t even try! So it was 45 minutes of them whining about non representation and why should they watch this thing they hated! And they were film reviewers! It made me so angry, lol. Like the point of criticism these days is to find as many ways to trash the film in pc terms. Really a lack of critical thinking skills, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Apr 22, 2019 12:32:43 GMT
I read the article earlier today, and it immediately seemed to me to be written by someone who has never studied literature. The novels we read, as well as the plays, tv shows and movies we watch, count on all of us being able to relate to the themes being presented. Any kind of art, really, needs to do that. Otherwise, it has failed. I remember when I studied King Lear and I was able to relate to the family dynamics of a king and his daughters - and I couldn’t be further removed from royalty! A more recent example for me would be Sex and the City. The characters lived a an entirely different universe from mine, and our lifestyles could not have been any different, and yet I could relate to almost everything that happened on that show. Whether it’s Shakespeare or Fleabag or Patrick Melrose, universal themes are there for everyone to relate. I also found it funny that the writer of the article kept saying that Fleabag’s dad had a huge house (so, therefore, she shouldn’t have any problems??). I didn’t think the house was all that impressive! And anyway, they often film made-for-tv movies where I live, and I can sometimes recognize the locations they use. Those movies always have the ordinary characters living in houses that are, in reality, multi-million dollar mansions from the wealthiest neighbourhoods in my city. How does a struggling cupcake baker afford a house like that?? It’s show business and make-believe! Wonderfully written post! Too often today it seems it is less about deep universal themes and more about very narrow, surface concerns. I really don't know how anyone reading PM (or watching BC in the role) can't see the ubiquitous nature of his pain that transcends his posh origins. My personal situation couldn't be any further removed from Patrick's life, but his struggle to make sense of his world strikes right at the heart of what it is to be human to me. That's what I connected to with the books and with the series. To dismiss his story just because he is "posh" is like ignoring a badly cut and bleeding person at the side of the road because they are wearing expensive shoes. Your rejection of aid says more about your lack of humanity than anything about him or her. |
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 22, 2019 13:27:40 GMT
I watched a panel of folks reviewing PM and they were so condescending about it b/c Patrick was a rich white boy and they just couldn’t relate (okay), but strangely they didn’t even try! So it was 45 minutes of them whining about non representation and why should they watch this thing they hated! And they were film reviewers! It made me so angry, lol. Like the point of criticism these days is to find as many ways to trash the film in pc terms. Really a lack of critical thinking skills, imo. If you can't feel for an abused child because he is not part of your tribe you are not just fanatical but also evil. I mean they could say the theme was not managed in a good way or that the characters aren't written empathetically enough. They could say that the problem is the writing, the direction or the acting. That's a fair criticism but saying I can't relate to him because he is not like me and dare to ask for another story about another not related issue when someone is telling his own story about being sexually abused by his father for years then yes, you are evil for daring to politicize things that aren't even about you! Also a very lousy critic. The worst kind of critic is the ideologue one. I saw a few more comments by people thinking PM didn't received this kind of "criticism". Just one person seems to remember the nasty comments and, yes, she think they were much more disgusting because they were about not caring about sexually abused kids. It seems the others not just didn't read them but don't see the different implications of someone claiming not identifying with Fleabag and someone not feeling for Patrick Melrose. They also have an agenda or maybe they just can't imagine someone could be so evil to say they just don't care for raped posh white boys! But sadly, those people exist! |
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Apr 22, 2019 14:36:17 GMT
Some people are too jealous of those with more money or privilege than they have, to feel empathy for their stories, I guess. I don't understand it, because what good is a big house or expensive clothes, if you're being abused or are a drug addict? All the money did was allow PM to afford more drugs, for even longer. Also no matter who you are, there is always someone richer or poorer. The people complaining look wealthy to somebody else. 'Money doesn't buy happiness' is an old cliche, but true.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 22, 2019 17:17:23 GMT
Exactly! I think PM is much more anti-British class system than anything out there! Who would want to live a life like that? The price of being a privileged brat it's just too high! Not just the abuse as in the case of PM but your soul as the cases of David, Eleanor and even Princess Margaret! That's the message at the end, they are just pitiful figures with very sad lives. Patrick is practically saved because he fell to the middle class.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 22, 2019 22:35:24 GMT
|
|
