MovieChat Forums > A Thousand Acres (1997) Discussion > Child abuse victim? Oh, not again...

Child abuse victim? Oh, not again...

posted 19 years ago by przgzr
58 replies | jump to latest

Once and again American story about child abuse. When I first saw a movie about incest, and it was long before a hysteria spread all over the world - a beautiful movie, a great drama 'Something About Amelia' with incredible cast (Ted Danson, Glenn Close, Roxana Zal), it was the first time I understood the problem existed at all. And there was still some old-fashioned hope for the involved, and for family as entire. Then I saw a TV movie "Voices Within" with Shelley Long, not that good, but still interesting and fresh, about a multiple personality due to sexual molestation in childhood. And since then I realize the problem, and so do most of others who have seen any of these early movies who dealt with this topic. Unfortunatelly monstrous crimes like the one that was revealed in Belgium in mid-90's made child molestation one of the most popular themas. Now almost any problem adults have in modern movies happens to be a consequence of child abuse, and at least half of the children appearing in modern movies (except comedies) are molested (mostly sexually). So this tragic dark side of human relations became something boring. After 10 minutes you can say: "Ah, again one more child abuse movie...", and you don't involve your emotions any more. And political correctness in USA never enables movie authors to leave any hope in the movie: the molester (almost equal as father) is an impersonal monster (I wonder how are all women so blind to marry them). I do not defend any criminal, and any molester, but every situation, every person, every family is different. As Tolstoy said - every happy family looks the same, and every unhappy is unhappy in its own way. But due to P.C. every unhappy family in USA movies is unhappy because of child abuse, and every woman, man and child involved looks the same. So we became witnesses of an absurd situation: condemning exploitation became one of most exploitive themas in modern film industry. Children and abuse are used to sell movies (and the papers are sold better if there's a headline about sexual molestation - what's in the human nature that people adore to read about it so eagerly and breathlessly?). Maybe in 50 years we'll be able to distinguish masterpieces from B-type clones, as we can see differences among westerns that all looked quite same in 50's. So: if in earlier westerns cavalry used to come to rescue good white guys from red savages, P.C. made all westerns upside-down, and now all soldiers became killers, and noone dared to mention that Indians had made some slaughters as well (crimes done defending your country still are crimes, as we are taught by Haague court, except if made by US soldiers, as we are taught by US government); the same - as movies till 80's told the importance of obedience and never even let any abuse be implied, today only one-parent (mother) families can be abuse-free, and that only in case mother has no lover, brother or neighbour. And (with just a few exceptions) every suspicion that abuse happened always ends the same: father (or in less than 10% someone else) did it. If not so, because of P.C. audience might refuse to watch such a movie.

And a question that some people will hate me for, and some will despise me: if so many molestation happens in USA as their movies show us, what the hell is wrong with that people? How sane can this nation be if half of them are molestors, and another half has serious psychological problems due to molestation? And, finally, remember that this nation tries to lead the whole world and input their moral standards to the rest of the world! If, on the other hand, this doesn't reflect the reality, a modified questions stays similarly provocative: why are these movies so frequent and why do people adore watching them?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

I'm so disappointed.

I wrote a comment full of anti-PC statements, put a provocative title, and expected an avalanche of answers attacking me, calling me names from monster to psychopath, sending me to hell or institutions. And I was eagerly waiting for a good verbal fight.

Instead of that I got one (1) single answer in 2 weeks, and as polite as if a Medieval kings were writing to each other. What a pity! Now I have to be polite too, and I was prepared for a war.

Now serious. I can (as you, too, I believe) only hope and pray that you or me or noone we know ever experiences abuse, molestation or any other tragic event. I've never written that these topics should be avoided. I even mentioned some (and there were many others) movies that coped with the thema very well. I've basically only wanted to say that by exploiting it too much moviemakers make certain, not small damage. First, people get insensitive because they're overdosed; the effect diminishes with every new movie. Second, people get a feeling that molesting happens literally everywhere, so everyone can become suspicious and a target of accusation; to avoid it family members become cold and distant, and kids suffer again. And, finally, movies become less interesting when you know in advance what's "the dark secret" going to be. We are deprived of expecting the secret revealing when the final result is always the same. It's like in X-files, you always have the aliens (replacing fathers-molestors)...

[–] EnemyOfTheState 18 years ago

I am with you przgzr.

I saw this movie thinking it was going to be a modern adaptation of Shakespere's King Lear. What I saw instead was a childinsh melodrama which was more appropriate for Lifetime Movie Network (the official TV network of man haters everywhere).

[–] SeemsSensible 18 years ago

I think you got so little response to your post, przgzr, because no one read it. You really should break up your text into paragraphs. Being a farm kid, I thought this was a really good movie, and wanted to read others' comments. But it's off-putting to see a big ol' block of unbroken-up text.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Thanks for the advice. I probably got a little carried away trying to put as much ideas and objections as I could, thinking they will provoke people to reply... I just forgot to care about the form. My old problem is that my posts are too long (broken into paragraphs or not). I guess I'm too old for the web; laconic expressions were not such a big virtue in my days.

[–] komickaren 18 years ago

I agree with you, prazgzr, about the seemingly constant making of molestation/incest movies. I too think we are being desensitized more and more. Years ago, seeing a solder shot on the nightly news would be horrifying. Now it is unfortunately the norm. The same can be said for assasinations and attempted assasinations of presidents, etc. The more it shows it, the less unusual and horrible it seems when we watch it.

That all being said, the movies that portrat molestation show, if nothing else that it is not only all over but that it has been for years.

The upside of these, in my opinion, is that it has removed the taboo about discusing it. It has made it "OK" to talk about it. Finally, it isn't being kept in the closet. I have 3 granddaughters that have been told by me and their mom to tell if anyone ever touches them.

If nothing else comes from flooding the screen with these types of movies, at least this has.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Hey, it's great to find a grandfather here! I'm afraid I'm gonna be the same in a few years... (Afraid or happy, depending on the point of view.)

I agree with you, it's good the taboo has been removed and the problem's now up on the surface. But, except for destroying movies, too much talking about it is also contraproductive. People live in fear. We live in fear from everything, from AIDS, from asteroids, from flu, from terrorist attacks, from Ice age threaten, from global warming threaten... And it's all media that make us afraid, feeling unsecure.

The childhood should be free of that fears. Freedom that childhood brings is something hard to compare to anything in human life. If we restrict children their freedom because we are afraid of something, the beauty of their age is shattered. There are people who don't let their children go out of the house because they are too protective, what is caused by their fears and anxiety, they are afraid of traffic, animals, strangers, diseases etc. These children (and their number grows every year) don't develop as social beings, don't learn to live among other people, and their own anxiety is formed much earlier than in any former generation.

We, parents (or grandparents), must be careful, must keep eye on kids, but we mustn't let them pay the price for our fears. Warning the children is a part of education, but it must have limits. We can't keep them in jail and fear, hidden from the world, and expect them to grow up to be sane people. People today use to avoid their responsibilities. Having children is a job with 24 hours shift. Having problems out of closets and ladders doesn't mean we can put children in closets and ladders and think we've done everything we could and should.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mithol 13 years ago

This film wasn't supposed to be a warning for anyone. It's based on a book, so the molstation part was obviously a key part of that which had to be included. One of the major themes in the movie was not being able to forgive the unforgivable. I guess you don't remember what Michelle Pfeiffer said at the end. And what is more unforgivable than a father molesting his own daughter?

Personally, I have not seen than many movies about child molesation. I think you're exaggerating. There are plenty of movies about war and romance as well, the only difference is that there has been no increase in those types of movies. The number has remained the same. However, movies about child molesation have increased. Why? Well, you already answered that question for yourself. For the same reasons that movies with gay characters have increased. Because the subject matter is no longer taboo.

[–] przgzr 13 years ago

So... maybe I am wrong about this movie, as you say it was made after a book and can't be blamed for commercial abuse of the worst kinds of abuse itself.

War and romance are topics that belong to (unfortunately and fortunately, consecutively) the most frequent events throughout human history. It's hard to imagine that even more wars or romances could be put on the screen. But if somebody makes a movie about an oil disaster in Mexican Gulf, and suddenly a number of movies showing all kinds of oil disasters starts increasing year after year till almost every oil platform on screen ends in explosion making an ecological disaster.

I simply want to say that it's not intriguing any more when a (big, dark etc) family secret is announced in a trailer or article that you read about any movie, it's not interesting any more, in fact it is boring because there is only one secret appearing in movies made in last few decades.

Don't misunderstand me. I have children, I work with children. It's good that people recognize and got sensibilized to the molestation issue. I don't, however, as for the issue want people de-sensibilized, and as for movies want them become more and more predictable and boring.

[–] Mithol 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure that child sexual abuse is far more common (unfortunately) than oil disasters. As someone from a family that has suffered from the same horrible situation that is featured in this movie, I have to say that I don't think it's possible for the issue to be explored to the point that people will become desensitised to it. Sadly, it's a part of life and life is what movies try to portray.

But then I guess I just think you're exaggerating still. I don't think there are that many storylines in movies involving child molestation. At least, the percentage is no higher than the percentage of actual child abuse cases that occur in real life.

[–] przgzr 13 years ago

I am glad that I can agree, there are not that many oil disasters - it was just an example how could Hollywood react if some movie with such a topic might become a blockbuster.

Also, I don't try to say that (almost) every movie contains child abuse. I was talking about movies that deal with some family secrets, skeletons in family closets. Several decades ago, existence of such a secret could mean a lot of different things, while today any other secret but child abuse is simply impossible to be found.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

"So there's a simple reason why the USA does it, CAN do it, and maybe even HAS to do it.
Because of POWER."
"The question isn't if the USA really has such high moral standards..."

So, the criteria that all nations should accept for their future moral standards is power. That really has a lot to do with morality. Romans had power and used it to input their moral standards. History shows us the results. Hitler had power and his moral standards that included gas chambers, erasing whole nations, disabled and mentally ill persons were not just tried to, but (by his power) transferred to some occupied countries. So, if he had just a little more power or was just a bit quicker in using all his power, the rest of the world would have to gladly accept his moral standards. Ask people beyond Iron curtain how glad they were to have Stalin's moral standards - he also tried to spread them all over the world and some consequences are still present. And all of them had to do it because they had power and excuse of self-preservation. Let's go back to Romans. You surely know their "Historia est magistra vitae" sentencia. And now apply it to the final results of self-preservation of nazi Germany or communist Soviet Union.

"It's natural. It seems (as long as things are how they are right now, and I mean in the whole world) USA doesn't really have a choice."

I thought that moral standards have been developing a little since the Dawn of the man (Kubrick). It seems I was wrong. When guns speak everything else must be quiet. And if USA really has no choice, then God help us all now, and USA in the end.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Do you think USA will let us feel unhappy and unpleasant about that? Or is it expected that the brain washing we have been exposed to through movies, entertaintment programs, commercials, Oprah-Springer&similar shows etc. make us feel glad?

At least, Roman emperors didn't care if their slaves were happy. Holocaust is the best example how much nazis cared. But Stalin found it very important for people all over the world to think how great life beyond Iron Curtain was (no bad news was allowed to cross the border), and in the same time made military actions all over the world, just in case someone had second thoughts. USA citizens used to believe that Reds are bad because they were doing all that. Feel free to imagine the next sentence (this freedom hasn't been suspended yet).

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Oh, indeed, in many of them things are far worse than in America. The only - but for the rest of the world most important - difference is that they don't try to export it to others, and even make them feel it's just what they want!

Pol Pot at least didn't try to transfer his methods to Norway and Moslem fundalists are honest enough to avoid saying that Brasilian women should be covered by dozen sheets on +40C because those females (and Brasilian males as well) long for it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Hey, read my opening post! I started it by saying how some great movies had opened my eyes, making me realize that some things I couldn't even dream in worst nightmares exist in some people's tragic reality. And I can't remember I've ever written child abuse and incest should've been forbidden subjects and they should be hidden under a carpet.

But when you have too much of something you can expect the unpleasant effects and adverse reactions. Too many moviemakers use this thema just to fill the plot, because they have no imagination, the topic is modern and brings money (both from people who are attracted by any sexual issue and from people who want to get all the confimations how wicked this world is) or because they want to show how political correct they are. But that brings no good either to the movies that become uniform and boring, or to the handling of the problem in reality.

Remember what is the consequence of over-saturation? Sedimentation...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

It's usually my fault. I write too long posts and people give up reading them because of their length. And it's more likely I am "a negative person who wants to argue everything", I like provoking and I'm bored with discussions where people just say "yeah, that's what I think too". Sometimes I go beyond some reasonable lines just to make people open and show their real faces and beliefs. That's why I'm glad to read any reaction, and the one like your is always welcome.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

This is exactly why I've started this thread. I haven't seen "Bastards out of Carolina", but I heard about it (the title is correct to my knowledge). Nevertheless, there are other movies that really explore and try to enter the core of the problem. Maybe because it was the first one I've seen, or because of the approach entirely different from the one you can expect today (no unconditional lynch, but seeking for a chance to repair and rebuild: yes, I know it's very often impossible, but today we are all too radical - not just on this subject - and to impatient and unwilling to check more than one solution) I'd still recommend "Something about Amelia".

And I don't think this topic should be only either deeply explored or avoided. There are always subplots in movies, so it can be just mentioned or used in background (e.g. a child has a schoolmate that has been abused, but it is a small supporting role and you won't go in big analysis). I am disturbed and angry because so many movies (like this one) use child abuse as a deep hidden secret that will be revealed in some dramatic moment as if a monster would jump on main character in a horror, but they don't make any effect any more because we are so overdosed that the first thing we can think of is incest when any "dark secret" is mentioned in trailers or paper articles. The times when dark secrets could be really unexpected, suprising, and problems in families unequal to sexual abuse seem to be far behind us. Noone can make "Ordinary People" or "Spellbound" any more.

By the way, there is one more side: destroying someone's life by accusing him of abuse that didn't happen. Just recently I was surprised to see it in "Snapshot Decisions". I wasn't impressed by the movie, but this was an unexpected approach, especially for an American movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Yeah, I understood it at once, just wanted to make it clear for others who may visit the board. I've also in the first place started a thread with abuse as central theme on my mind, particularly in movies when it is a "ghost from the closet" meant to shock us and now all it does is either irritate or bore and leave us empty. And, as you say, this is surely not something abuse victims deserve.

[–] wilmawilcat 18 years ago

Oh, for pete's sake: "the USA does this, USA thinks that." American films are not the country. We don't have a state propaganda machine. Foreigners are usually surprised when they finally make it here to find that we aren't like our films and television.

We're just people, like the rest of the world. Our film industry isn't exclusively Hollywood, but that industry is still pretty much run from that location, and Hollywood is nothing like the rest of the country. Frankly, it's not much like the rest of California, even.

One thing that Hollywood is good for is pissing matches between producers. There's no creative standard or even fiduciary standard, as filmgoers might imagine.

A film doesn't have to be creatively good or a money maker. It just has to have a certain kind of appeal to the people in the industry at the moment. It's not calculated, so there's no grand design to portray the reality of American life. It's entertainment, and it's really just used as markers in the games the industry people play amongst themselves.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

I don't doubt most of this is true. I believe that you are absolutely sure what you say is true. I almost started saying "Mea culpa"... and then I remembered the number of people that watch these Hollywood movies, and the way they are made - no, there is probably no creative standars. There is only money standard, and they make movies that will fit American audience. Not only Californian, but Oklahoma, Alabama, Dakota etc. And they create test audiences that include average American people, and because these test audiences look one like the other, so do look the movies. I never said it is a state propaganda the way USSR produced in Cold War. But these movies go abroad and represent America, wether you like it or not.

I am sorry for people like you. You don't deserve to be simply labeled like we often simplifice: Russians used to be reds, Germans nazis, Moslems terrorist or at least fundamentalists, Italians members of cosa nostra etc. But, while many other nations try to escape from these false standards, America seems to be proud of it, and despite of people like you, average non-American gets an image that doesn't come from prejudices, but from picture America makes itself.

[–] wilmawilcat 18 years ago

It comes from the picture Hollywood makes, which as I plainly said, is not our doing. You should feel sorry for yourselves, being willing to judge a whole country from thousands of miles away, on no real evidence.

And again, as I plainly said, there is not even a moneymaking standard. You make me laugh, saying "I believe that you are absolutely sure what you say is true." It's you who's in that corner. I got my information from someone in the industry.

Of course, producers would like to make money with a film, but it's far more important to impress their peers, according to this individual. And that peer group is an esoteric and strange one.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

You mean it is kind of vanity, or proofing themselves?

Maybe you are right. But watching the movies USA sends abroad you still get the impression that the best way they proof is competing who makes more money.

I believe authors do want to impress and they do want to give more to their audience, but their position has never been so low and unimportant. Just a few from old times like Altman and Allen can still have some control and make real decisions how will their movie look like. (And maybe people in independent movies that USA doesn't send out of country.) Others are blocked by producers. What brings us back to second paragraph.

[–] wilmawilcat 18 years ago

I posted here because that industry individual went abroad for location work and was astounded and concerned that foreigners think they know what America is from watching Hollywood productions.

Not much could be further from the truth, and it bothered him tremendously. Apparently, other world governments have much more control and censorship about what leaves the cutting room floor. Foreigners think our government must be sanctioning all our production as well, and it doesn't. Not at all.

Having grown up in the industry, he explained what I related above: that it's not even revenue that controls what gets made, unfortunately. He said it's an ego trip among a relative handful of people and doesn't have much to do with the rest of us.

[–] candace_osborne 18 years ago

I read "A Thousand Acres" for a college literature class, but I have not seen the movie yet, and in fact did not know it had been made into one. Jane Smiley wrote this novel to give the feminist perspective on Shakespear's play. She has said so herself. The only reason Ms. Smiley could see for two daughters turning their father out of the house was that they had been emotionally and physically abused as children. One must keep in mind that she wrote the novel as a modern perspective on "King Lear", not just as "one more child abuse" book. Although people may not agree with the spin she added, the children turning the father away because he abused them, it is an entirely possible one. Scholars have long asked themselves why the daughters did this. Unfortunately, Shakespeare never gave readers any indication.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

It is a very realistic possibility. Why not? How could anyone expect children to respect, obey or even love parent who abused them?

All I say is that there are too many movies that use, or now you can say even abuse this motif for disturbed personalities or disturbed family relations, or just "deep dark secret" as this movie was announced on the TV channel where I saw it. And, after watching not dozens but hundreds of movies that reveal always the same secret, I could tell what this "deep" secret is not from the beginning, but before the opening credits. And that ruines the interest in the movies in general and the joy of watching them. So, something that Shakespeare left open for anyone of us during centuries to imagine and think about now gets finalized because there mustn't any question be left unanswered in Hollywood movies. Or maybe their audience can't think anymore, so they have to get all the answers and explanations on the plate; otherwise they wouldn't pay expensive tickets next time.

And even if we have to get the explanation, I can't understand why is it always the same one. Lack of ideas, underestimating the audience or weird world that won't be interested in any other possibility?

[–] candace_osborne 18 years ago

Ah true. I think Hollywood does run out of new ideas! After all, consider how long movies have been made. However, with each new generation, something new happens. Like better special effects and better..what would you call it, color and viewing? And "A Thousand Acres" is definitely a story of its own. How many other movies or books taken Shakespear's play, made it modern, and added its own twists? Oh wait, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and many others I'm sure. Although none have done it quite like this. I think this type of movie is interesting for people that are looking for recent stories about child abuse. Not many people would want to see an "old" movie made in the 80's about this.

I wish Aristotle were living now..It would be interesting to see how his ethics changed.

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Even Aristotel had to admit the times had been changing and he had certain troubles to handle it. Yes, it would be interesting what would he say now, when you don't need centuries or at least a generation to see some changes. Today the changes are so big and so quick that children who leave primary school already seem old-fashioned and can hardly understand the generation from the 1st grade.

If I had seen "A Thousand Acres" before those other movies, I would probably be impressed. Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange are among my favorite actresses, and though Carradine doesn't appear in so many great movies as he did in 70's and 80's, he is always among the best. But those others movies made the damage. As I've said, it is not that this movie is bad, but the joy of watching is wrecked.

"Not many people would want to see an "old" movie made in the 80's about this." Why? It is again the propaganda, brain washing from modern commercials - not only Hollywood, but everyone who makes any money is telling the whole world that everything made before is crap, and only his modern products are worth consuming - if it were clothes, music, cars, movies, shoes, deos... I can understand when it's about factory products, but throughout the history art was above this. People enjoyed art regardless of the age it was made, and artists tried to prove themself doing something worth and beautiful, and not by destroying and humiliating or ignoring what has been done before them. To be an artist meant to understand and enjoy art, existing from before or made by an artist himself. Today, however, most of these "artists" have nothing to do with art, and it is logical that "producers" decide evertyhing, it is the best term that could have been used for main people in today "art": they produce pieces of art like toasters or pet food cans. So the quality usually doesn't go above the cans - maybe good for animals, but you feel a knot in the stomach after consuming.

[–] candace_osborne 18 years ago

Oh yes, I completely agree. I think new movies and books are important though, because I always find myself losing a little respect for the actors of old movies, or writers of old books, or painters, etc., because I'll find out something turns me off, like they were I don't know..slaveholders, or didn't think that women were equal to men. This is almost completely digressing from your original topic though. I'm sorry!

candace jean

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

I don't think we (and I mean the whole world, it is happening very frequently) should mix private lives and the artist's work. Whatever he did, thought or said in real life becomes irelevant when he made a work that talks for itself. And do you think that modern artists don't have something hidden, or something you just don't know about them? And this can be used by those merchants of modern art, when they can't earn enough money any more they can spread a story about him, so people will stop buying his works and start buying something that is declared to be modern by those same people who abandoned and burried the former star.

[–] candace_osborne 18 years ago

No, we shouldn't mix the private and public lives of artists or famous historical figures, but the fact that while George Washington, the Lees, Aristotle, and many more talked about freedom, they owned slaves. Their hypocrisy makes me wonder at their wisdom.

candace jean

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Greeks and Romans considered themselves the only civilised nations, all the rest were less worth, almost half-humans. Therefore their most liberale politicians and philosophers demanded freedom for all humans, but that didn't include those beyond the border. Hypocrisy looking from today point of view, but logical and realistic if you imagine yourself in those years, almost moral ahead of its time.

And hypocrisy seems to be one of immanent characteristics of mankind, spread worldwide and eternal. What about the liberty exported from USSR during cold war decades? They declared freedom, so they forced people to take (their kind of) freedom by weapons. To give nations "freedom" they were executing hundreds of thousands of their own people. To enable people in distant countries a chance to have libetared life they caused civil wars and military actions that threw the nations over the edge of poverty, just to make them live in "better society".

And what about hypocrisy of a country who leads one war after another (and some simultaneously) against chosen countries accused of being danger to free world and human rights, especially emphasizing rights of women and children, but not mentioning the civil rights in country that doesn't allow women to drive a car or leave home without male company, and even let a whole class of schoolgirls burn to death because they weren't properly dressed to leave the school in flame? The country that, calling itself the only super-power in the world, bravely attacks the island of Grenada, but puts gloves and speaks in lower voice every time when North Korea is mentioned, was it because Grenada was a bigger threath to world? And does the (repeated!) war in Iraq mean that those people are worth more than people in Vukovar, Sarajevo or Srebrenica, so the supermen came to rescue only the former?

And what is but a hypocrisy when one religion threatens the whole world because of a dozen pictures that are considered insulting to their Prophet, and in the same time sentence to death members of other religion just for posessing their Holly book. Or burning churches and writing songs that curse the other nation and "their" God, as if it is not the same God they believe in - if they do have faith in their hearts at all (because if they did, they wouldn't act that way).

So, knowing that, we should probably avoid all Russian, American, German, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Slavic etc etc actors, singers, painters... because most of them never raised a voice against these events, therefore took part in all-time and all-place hypocrisy we are surrounded by.

Comparing to that, a hypocrisy of making big money by abusing and exploiting the theme of child abuse and exploitation suddenly doesn't seem such a big deal, does it? It matches perfectly in our world.

[–] gigi1937 17 years ago

Whew, you make lots of good points, przgzr, especially about our being overwhelmed with reports/movies, etc. of child abuse. When I watched A Thousand Acres last night, I was surprised when child abuse was brought out. I was expecting the movie to be about an old man becoming senile and not liking the way his family ran things, and thus becoming bitter, not being able to adapt to old age, and no longer being in control, etc., etc.. Silly me! (Actually, the only reason I watched the movie was to see Colin Firth).

But, that being said, I have to also say that I agree with wilmawilcat that movies, etc., do not show realistic picture of the average American. Movies are entertainment, or should be. Believe me, I do not lead the type of life Hollywood portraits in so many movies, nor do I live a glamorous Hollywood type life style.

One of the disturbing things I felt when reading this thread, was the picture people throughout the world have of Americans. Let me first say that I don't think America was being used as a whipping post (so to speak), but America is the country I've always lived in so it is the only one I know much about. I've traveled throughout Europe twice, but I was a tourist so don't pretend to know how Europeans think and feel.

I realize that there are many problems within our country, and in our government, but I think the recent election shows the people are wanting change. I love this country very much, with all it's flaws, and I feel sad when I read or hear negative things about us. Silly me, again! But even different areas of this country have wrong impressions/ideas about other areas. For example, I was born in the deep south, but also lived all over the U.S. and I have seen how wrong people's impressions of Southerners can be. A lot of people still think we all go barefoot, marry at age 13, drink moonshine, stay pregnant, live on welfare, drive rusty, broken-down old trucks, and kill African-Americans on a daily basis. In other words we are portrayed as ignorant rednecks. This may or may not be true of some Southerners, but it certainly isn't true of most of us.

Most Americans, in general, are average people trying to make decent lives for ourselves and our families - getting by the best way we know how. The average American does not want corrupt power any more than the average person in other countries. One thing that does drive us recently though is fear, as we have been fed an overwhelming and, in some cases, unrealistic dose of it. In my opinion, political correctness also has been carried way too far. I grit my teeth a lot about P.C. and try not to practice it.
Well, enough already. Just wanted to express my opinions. Przgzr, and all, I did find your comments thought provoking and interesting.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Hi!

I'm so disappointed. You have been so polite (and I had bad luck to be answered by several polite US people one after another), I really liked and enjoyed reading your post, and so I have to be polite too... and I miss a good quarrel so much...

I am glad that you didn't find my posts personally insulting, (they've never been intenteded to offend anyone, no matter how harsh I sometimes am when writing about USA) as some people do. And sometimes I have been accused to generalize, but it is mostly because I have to be as brief as possible (people avoid long posts) and that was never easy task for me.

But I've read many other posts that also generalized Americans. And it was your reply that made me finally analyze why is that happening. I know average American can't exist in society with 300 million people, hundreds of nations, languages, dozens religions etc. And movies can't show average American and don't show real life. Yes, they are entertaninment. But...

Almost all American movies show the same style of life, same attitudes, same messages (if any – but lack of message also tells something). If you watch them, you'll never recognize what part of America do they show: if it is a town, it is a big town and there is no real difference if it is NYC, LA, Frisco, Chicago – it is urban movie. If it is village, it is the same if it shows New England or Alabama, only in the former they don't like slavery, and in latter they have sentimental memories about it, but besides that – it is rural movie. And so most overseas people get impession that this is average America. Watch French movies: you can tell if their characters belong to Paris, Bretagne, Marseille, suburb of some middlesized inland city. Even in Hungarian movies you can tell the difference (if you know anything about the country). And the characters belong to their homeland and also to their social class, to their professions etc. Marseille crime organisation never shows glamour of American mobs, Hungarian peasant from puszta is never equal to a Czech peasant from Menzel movie although they live so close (according to American standards it would be a neighbour county). Middle class in Berlin, Munich, Hamburg and Frankfurt all speak German, live in a space smaller than Texas, but they don't share problems and way of life, while US movies tell us NWC and LA people are equal despite of 3000 km of a great coutry that lies between them. And Swedish fathers won't try to kill all their daughter's boyfriends, keeping their princesses for themselves. (After all these movies it seems that half of American fathers have incestuous relations with those princesses, and the other half overprotect them having bad conscious for wanting but not daring to do the same.)

Maybe we would still believe it is all caused by entertaninment reasons, and it is just poor imagination of American directors that can't do anything out of cliché; but then we get Oprah who inftiltrates all networks and all homes worldwide faster and deeper than any cancer infiltrates our cells, and tells again the same story. Finally, there is Bush, different American organizations or even international organizations influenced mostly by Americans, that tell us the same.

So I appologize to you and many other great people who answered me on these boards, I know no one of you fits into the picture we have about your country. We have to ask ourselves why are we unfair to you.. And you, on the other hand, have to ask yourselves who are people who like(d) Bush, who are people among you that buy tickets to watch movies which show your country so wrong (and thus make producers want to do same movies over and over again), who are people in “test groups” for movies, who are people that demand censorships, burning books, who are people that so eagerly participate in Oprah's and countless similar shows... Aren't they America we are talking about?

Sorry for taking so much place. But I really liked your post and wanted to explain; I'd be glad to read more from you.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gigi1937 17 years ago

I've been thinking about our last posts (yours and mine), and want to add a couple of things.
First, in your objections to the U.S., remember that we aren't the only country with problems, and an awful lot of people want to come here so we must be doing something right. We have a lot of freedom and, to me, that's worth everything.
So far I haven't wanted to live anywhere else. It's so easy to blame the U. S. for everything that goes wrong. In growing up, when I'd come home blaming someone else for something I didn't like, my mom use to say, "Try to look beyond your own nose." Part of what's wrong with this world (including my own country) is that we spend so much time blaming others that we don't see what is wrong with ourselves. The only solutions I've found for myself is to treat others the way I want to be treated and to do whatever I can to change things. My way of protesting is to not buy certain movies, books, products., etc. This may seem too tame, and maybe too little, too late, but it's my way. As for our movies, people all over the world watch them, so ask yourself, what is also wrong with them, why do they watch them?

As for child abuse, this isn't a problem only in the U.S. It happens all over the world. Why? What is wrong with people to make them abuse children, murder others, steal, etc., etc.? Not just here, but everywhere. And if you think it only happens here in the U.S., you are sadly mistaken. I have personally known only two cases where it happened, although I know it's more widespread than that. Even one case is one too many. I don't believe though that this is happening in most families.

Right now I feel frustrated because I don't think I'm expressing myself very well, and writing this way is far too limiting. It's impossible to write everything I feel and believe in this type of setting. But I am hoping to hear more from you.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Sorry for my late reply, I've read your first post almost as soon as you've sent it, but I didn't have time enough to write. And your post isn't the one that can be replied quickly and without thinking (in my country there is an expression "with a left foot" - meaning you do something just because you are expected to, and don't care about it at all; nothing to do with the great "My Left Foot" movie).

Now I don't know where to start. First: I'm usually not too serious, and I don't like my posts look that way. I can, however, really get deeply involved in some discussions, and if had a good opponent it can get quite stormy, but I avoid any rude words and insults. So, don't be afraid, besides when I find someone who brings peace from the start, I won't even try to start a fight (my job is full time work with different people - I know how far can I go).

I am always glad to find people who are proud of their countries. Other people might not understand it, but it is your country, you were born there, you have (at least some) roots there, you grew up there, that country gave you education and opportunities... And no country is perfect, we must admit we are not perfect either, but that is not a reason for people not to be proud of land they belong.

I've never said everything is wrong in USA, or that all - or even most - people belong to dark forces. I have relatives in USA, I've met some Ameerican people in Europe, and not a single one was a person to avoid. So, no prejudices on my side.

Why do people watch American movies? People get more and more informations in schools, but are less and less prepared for real life because in the same early years they are brain-washed by reality shows, agressive commercials and instant fashion styles that change all the time; so nothing in their basic years seems to be firm and steady - influence of families, religions, traditions is getting weaker and that leaves empty space for weak substitutes given by pop stars, reality shows participants, DJs etc. And most American movies have target audience exactly among these young people - older people mostly don't even go to cinemas, finding nothing suitable for themselves. So, the most important data in producers analysis - financial - show that these empty movies bring most money: the target audience is also most susceptible when these movies get advertised... And the more they watch them, the less are they interested in anything else what needs use of brain, or belongs to other, strange cultures - including their own: being exposed almost entire life to American influence they lose connection to their own roots. I like when you say how proud you are to be American, but young generations in other countries don't know what should they be proud for, because they were whirled into globalisation. Tragically, those few who see the problem and try to resist often see no other way but go to another extreme, becoming skinheads, neo-nazis, extreme nationalists etc.

Child abuse exist everywhere, of course. In fact, it is (again) an outcome of American movies that people think all Americans molest their children. Insisting on this topic not only made movies boring, but made all American fathers look evil as well.

Now, back to your former post. I don't blame Bush at all. He is a product of changes in American society. And I wouldn't care for it any more than for elections in Sri Lanka or Malawi if it were not for the influence on our, non-American young generations. I guess it was AIDS, then 11/9 and similar events that made American people scared, and some people (I have no idea who they are) used it for their purposes, and made this fear grew to paranoia. It is very easy to keep people obedient if they are scared. It looks like Medieval ages when church kept people in fear to force them accept their attitudes and obey their orders. But we know who was pulling the string then... And now?

French don't hate Americans any more than they despize others. They feel they're above all of us. How often do you find French people on IMDb or any other non-French sites? But, comparing to German experience you've had, I don't think average American people are any worse. I don't want to bother with examples, but I have some personal ones.

We are not judging you. We don't hate you (but I'm afraid it is changing in the way both of us woudn't like). We'd only like to have same freedom as you, to keep our lives, traditions, religion, culture, way of life free of globalisation as long as it means americanisation.

And I'm also hoping our communication won't stop here. In fact, some parts of our discussion are so far from the topic and so often repeated on this site, that maybe we should separate movie-related parts of it and keep it here, and the rest transfer to private messages.

[–] gigi1937 17 years ago

You're right, of course, that we have strayed from the movie subject. In fact, the last time I wrote I almost sent you a private message but didn't because I wasn't sure whether I should. But now that you've mentioned it, yes, let's do that. I don't have anything else to say about the movie except I did like it, the acting was good, and I usually like movies where I can see Colin Firth, lol. So, I'll contact you and we'll continue our discussions of other things.

[–] clayheadswamp 17 years ago

didn't especially like the book about which so many of my friends raved and wouldn't have bothered with the film but for Colin Firth. I was quite surprised that - Mr. Firth aside - I really liked the film.

sorry, I couldn't wade through all these posts but it seems everyone is gravitating to the sexual abuse (sex sells, big news) and missing a truth that is universal, and is a huge and very real part of the story.

this man, the father, is revered about town and a monster at home so his daughters have this absurd dual reality, what they live and what the town tells them they live. there is a scene at a church dinner that encapsulates it - other towns people are remarking upon their ill treatment of this wonderful man, what was it, putting him out on a night you'd not turn away a wolf? and what are they supposed to do, tell the truth about him? and Harold isn't much better, the joke that he was having a party for his tractor, not his son, wasn't a joke.

[–] gigi1937 17 years ago

Yeah, the posts were long, mine included. Like you, I watched the movie because of Colin Firth, and ended up liking the movie itself. Haven't read the book. I was really surprised when child sexual abuse came out. Up until then I thought the father was just a grumpy old man (getting senile and mean, the way some do), that didn't like the changes being made, etc. Plus, he had lost control and didn't like that one bit. So the part about the abuse was a surprise.

I think the movie shows how we never truly know people; or maybe we do know, but we turn a blind eye to the truth. The father, and his friend, are mean and spiteful, but the towns people think they are fine, upstanding men. The youngest daughter was just as hateful as the father, the way she turned on her sisters. The victims were turned into villians, which happens so often.

[–] Sheepi-Girl 17 years ago

The only reason the child molestation drama was placed into the novel and the movie was because of King Lear.
As I am currently studying it for my English A-Level, it is required that the text be whole heartedly ripped apart to the extent where you wonder if Shakespeare was not thinking in fact about nature, but that cute tavern wench he met last night.

Anyway, I digress (apologies for the big words but I am attempting to be polite). In Act One scene One, King Lear demands that his daughters proclaim how much they love him. The amount of love they show will contribute to how much land they get. It has been argued by many people, that what Goneril and Regan say is pushed beyond the boundaries of normal parental relationships. In fact, in many television and stage adaptions, body language plays a vital part in that Goneril and Reagan act with him just exactly how daughters shouldn't.

Cordelia tells her Father she loves him as a daughter should, no more, no less. This is where it ties into Smiley's novel in the fact that Rose and Ginny protected Caroline from their father. However, because it is told from Ginny's perspective, we are bound to obtain a biast view. The molestation is spelled out clearly, whereas in Shakespeare's novel it is left down to the individuals interpretation.

so we're all men of our word really...except for Elizabeth who is in fact a woman.

[–] FilmTalker 16 years ago

A very late reply, but ...

It is very clear that the amount of love the daughters show is quite equal to the amount of greed they possess. Of course Goneril's and Regan's proclamations are wildly over the top, but not (necessarily) because they have had sexual relationships with their father: The more they want, the larger the amount of love they have to protest. The fact that some directors sexualise each possible bit of dialogue that can be sexualised does not prove your point about possible abuse of Goneril and Regan.

Can't they be just selfish and cruel? I mean, if Lear was an abuser in the play, he would also simply be selfish and cruel, so why this urge to shift the cruelness from the daughters to the father?

[–] reeldramaqueen 13 years ago

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but Ginny rationalizes near the end of the novel that their childhood was a direct consequence of years and years of the Cook men taking what they wanted without regard for the feelings of others. Earlier she flashes back, or maybe remembers this was told to her, that a great portion of their land came from her father or grandfather (sorry it's been a while since I've read the book) taking advantage of a neighbor who was having financial trouble. She seems to trace back to this moment as perhaps the beginning of the same greed that is at the center of Shakespeare's play. I'll see if I can find the passage in my book. People don't often look at sexual abuse as anything other than sick and depraved, which it is, particularly when it's a father and his two daughters. But in the book, it also seems to be another manifestation of Larry's selfish greed.

I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bilbob20 13 years ago

The amount of sexual abuse stories on tv and film fiction are a fraction of the real cases going on out there.

And you should be GRATEFUL that your experience of child abuse begins and ends with what you have seen on movies.

If you want to spout such lengthy rants about a social topic, then educate yourself by speaking to real people who have been affected by it, rather than making ill-informed inflammatory statements based on your flimsy knowledge from a handful of unrealistic films.

[–] przgzr 13 years ago

First, this is basically a movie forum, and I was discussing the consequences of overuse of this subject in movies, they became too predictable (but I don't want to repeat myself all over again). And then, being overdosed by the wrong use of it, people may become less sensitive in real life. I don't say that all people do, or majority, I'm talking about the danger.

And, second, I have certain education, I do work with children, and I can't let myself neglect any kind of abuse, any molestation. But this forum is not intended for analyzing my knowledge or my education. Let's keep our attention on movies.

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

The OP has openly admitted he just wanted to cause a reaction.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] chicago85 10 years ago

That's true ans also true of all trolls.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else