Hey, Greta, was it mostly pretend, or did you like swingin’ it to “Things Are Looking Up?” If so, then maybe you’ve also heard this fine one, “What Harlem Means to Me,” by the great tenor saxophonist Coleman Hawkins?
Ah, those were the days…1935…and yet, the icy winter of 1940/41, which saw France occupied, and Jews and others (including Coleman’s friend Django Reinhardt) hiding out in upper rooms all over Europe, was just around the corner. The horrors of the 40s, including the unspeakable ones orchestrated by Hitler and Stalin in camps and doctors’ offices, were glimpsed by some hardy and perceptive souls way back in 1935, the ones who made sure they read the more precise reports coming out of Germany and the USSR, the subterranean info ignored by the connected and glamourous, and often suppressed by the chairmen in charge of the newspapers and studios.
So what do you think, Greta, was it harder to hope for the future in those days, or now?
Of course, to even ask the question is to assume you read real histories, novels, and reflections about then, and what possible equivalents in our time exist about now.
Sorry for all that, Greta, but I can’t talk about anything without bringing lots of books into it, and incidentally, the last book there contains an essay of mine, titled “Social Dance in the Films of Whit Stillman,” in which I talk about Damsels in Distress and the unforgettable Stillman character at its center, Violet, played by you. It was 2012, a time of moderate hopefulness compared with what soon followed. Now I admit that Stillman had you, i.e., Violet, say that “even after civilization ends, people will still need a place to stay!” A funny line for the particular scene, but he apparently thought the West was that far gone even at that point--but as you’ll see me argue below, there was something about his (and your) Violet, that nonetheless imparted hope.
Here’s a bit of a teaser from my essay’s introduction:
Damsels in Distress, set in the 2000s, occurs well after the [“60s”] Revolution is consolidated. The film’s college scene is pretty dismal—“a tone of male barbarism predominates,” the education is sketchy, and suicidal depression is common. The group of would–be heroines seek under the leadership of the Violet character to improve things with a program that includes an attempt to start a new dance craze [the “Sambola”]. However, while the final two scenes obscure the fact—(they are fantasy-scenes in which all the characters dance with one another)--, Violet and co. fail to establish this dance—almost no-one comes the night they book a club for its debut.
Thus, what we might call Stillman’s “social dance trilogy” reveals this progression: 1) the passing of the older American pattern of social dance and its Society-dominated context [Metropolitan], 2) a briefly-successful attempt to revive social dance in a reworked form [Last Days of Disco], and 3) an illustration of a failed effort to start a revival of social dance today [Damsels in Distress].
And here’s the conclusion of the essay, which centers upon Violet:
…Damsels in Distress is about beginning small efforts of recovery amid the now-evident ruins of our civilization…
…young people may still find healthy ways to channel their instincts for love... Similarly, they may remedy some of the ignorance their poor education has saddled them with…, and mitigate the depression their now-barbaric society predisposes them to. Just as Damsels promotes this spirit of hope-focused dedication to renewal, it mocks decline-focused social commentary, by way of our learning that Fred is writing an essay on “The Decline of Decadence.” But…something as ambitious as starting a dance craze might not be something one can do in these times. Or, should we rather say that Violet just needed more allies to make the Sambola fly?
…the Violet character is a unique and important creation, and for reasons that go beyond her embodying certain aspects of Stillman himself. She brings together the creative aristocratic eccentricity of the hipster, and the compassionate democratic “outreach” of the youth leader. Stillman does not present her interest in lost social practices as driven by an egotistic cultivation of her own uniqueness. She is criticized by Lily for not recognizing society’s need for a “large mass” of people dedicated to what is “normal,” and while there is something to this, in the main the criticism does not really fit, and in fact suggests how Violet differs from our usual picture of the hipster. For her pursuit of lost practices largely comes from a caring democratic sense of what her generation really needs.
Finally, there is a suggestion that part of what makes Violet unstable is her being blessed (and cursed) with prophetic intuitions. [spoiler-laden evidence follows]…Stillman uses the Violet character to explore future prospects, and to illustrate that an attitude that could be shallowly described as “optimism” is the appropriate response to our civilization having unambiguously arrived at a stage of decline. Violet compares herself to Sisyphus after the failure of the Sambola, but that failure is not followed by a period of depression…rather…the happy ending of Damsels consists of our seeing that Violet and… [some guy] are becoming a couple, and a cinematic fantasy that displays her vision for social dance. In Violet, Stillman has given us an anti-Cassandra, a revealer of hopes, an example of resilience, and an all-American tap-dancing prophetess of happiness.
Many thanks, Greta, for playing Violet so well, imparting some extra-measure of credibility to the half-fantastic character, such that I could receive that hope and write those lines.
So perhaps you’ll understand why, that with that performance, and the lesser but still substantial goods of your own writing/directing of your Francis Ha and Ladybird, and of Alcott’s Little Women, that the name “Greta Gerwig” meant something to me, symbolized, shall we say, a certain intelligent decency, and most of all, a certain ability to understand the concerns of conservatives like Stillman, and to meet them half-way.
I do not follow Hollywood matters much, so I did not know what all you’ve been doing or saying when your name popped again into my consciousness this summer, upon seeing the trailer for Barbie. As repellent as the garish images were, and as bemused as I am by those who think it is important to ask “What the Barbie Toy Symbolized for Our Culture?,” seeing that the film was directed by you caused a hope that maybe it could turn out fun, that some of the spirit of “fantastical satire” that Stillman had hit upon in Damsels would touch it.
And then, we began to hear of what the plot actually consisted of—my guides in this were “Critical Drinker” and Lauren Chen of Mediaholic (below). And well, all the positive symbolic association your name once had for me just drained away.
Well, life is like that—it’s impossible sometimes to live up to our best moments, and especially when they also get invested with the hopes of others.
But still, this?
It’s impossible to discuss what you’ve done here without bringing in the word “betrayal.” I don’t want to, because ever since 2020, I’m finding myself drawn to using that word more and more, but I guess, just as a person tortured over a period of days by means of a blow-torch would wind up using the word “burning” a lot, I can only report what I’ve felt, however repetitive my description becomes.
To those who defend your film, by telling us to lighten up, as it’s just a fantasy-comedy about friggin’ Barbies, I play this from Stillman’s Barcelona:
I am sure in the weeks to come various writers will try to paint the conservatives and others who detest Barbie as ridiculous, on the basis of our not understanding its humor, or some subtle subtext. Likely, someone’s cooking up an Aristophanes-parallel as we speak. But there’s just no getting around the fact that the text of your film is anti-male. It’s fine with associating the “feminism” the dialogue constantly alludes to with, well, to quote a male character from Last Days of Disco, “a kind of free pass to make any kind of wounding or derogatory comment one wants to” about men.
Your film basically says to me, and also to all the boys in the school district I work for who might see it: you’re lame, and potentially very bad, because you are male. Your film says today’s males love “patriarchy,” and, that a healthy-enough fantasy for girls and women is a world where men are totally ruled by women, and not really loved by them, because they are essentially superfluous. It sounds like it also says it is healthy-enough to fantasize about a world wherein a hot body of eternal single womanhood replaces all images of babies, mothers, and aging anybodies.
Now you don’t get to hide, Ms. Gerwig and sundry defenders, behind the idea that these are the stereotypes that came with the Barbie toy. That you’re just playing out the logic of them, comedically exaggerated. Take a look at Chen’s video to be reminded how many girls played with the doll in a way that while it kept Barbie open to a variety of career-paths, in keeping with some of the toys’ accessories, tended to take her love for Ken (or her dating several Kens) seriously—and by necessity imagined the Ken-men as persons who mattered. Which also meant taking the fulfillment of that love in marriage and motherhood seriously, in keeping with others of the toy’s accessories. That Barbie readily appealed to fantasies of being the prettiest, sexiest, most popular, and richest, few would dispute, but the imaginative use of the toy would depend quite a bit on the nascent virtue or vice of the girl.
No, I’m not going to see the movie.
Now, a fellow scholarly friend of mine did see it, and then emailed me a few ideas for a review, wanting to know what I thought.
It was a short email exchange, Ms. Gerwig, but yes, it is yet more evidence that you can take a proud stand on that old chestnut, that everything you did is justified because you’ve started a conversation!
Anyhow, here’s the main part of what I said to my friend:
“I suspect that Gerwig and her main writers initially intended something--a subtext!--capable of ironic comment, but in the Hollywooke process, whatever it was (and it likely was of little substance anyhow) got chewed up and compromised to the point where what we have is outright incoherent where it isn't just baldly anti-male and anti-motherhood. Vestiges of the Ur-ironic-subtext are there in the weird overuse of the words ‘feminism’ and ‘patriarchy,’ the fact that Ken actually gets a how-to book on ‘patriarchy,’ etc.”
I.e., I think it is possible that at some point, the script had an ironic subtext designed to let more-astute viewers see it as criticizing over-done feminism.
Don’t know. Don’t exactly care.
“Most of our artists do not understand that ironic subtext in popular arts which intends to secretly criticize that which it portrays almost never has the intended effect, although it is more possible in film than in popular music. But I suspect that nothing of creative merit is possible with any big Hollywood production today in which the auteur has not secured total control, and especially one necessarily connected to the promotion of a consumer product.”
More to the point, I have no reason to suspect that Chen and “Critical Drinker” are lying, Ms. Gerwig, when they say most of your film just falls flat and is extra-awkwardly preachy.
And like most of America, I’ve received the two main messages loud and clear: 1) men stink, and, 2) despite all the complaints Hollywood’s gotten about feminist and progressivist preaching in what are advertised as escapist movies, they’re just gonna keep shoving it in our faces, and at our kids to boot. They’ll hide behind a toy, behind Gerwig’s formerly good name, but they’re going to keep on.
Do you remember what Nick said in Metropolitan to Charlie when his jealousy was leading him to slag Tom? I.e., when he was defending the main character, the Stillman-stand-in who begins as a socialist who deplores the formal dance parties of fading American “Society,” but who, however his politics develop or not, winds up defending these parties and a number of the morays that go with them?
“Tom’s hardly a phoney—just mildly deluded…He’s a perfectly nice guy.”
Ms. Gerwig, until recently, conservatives thought we could say that about you.
You are talented, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if you eventually give America something that redeems your reputation for cinematic artistry. Although, the closer you draw towards the Hollywood power-players, as you did with this film, the less likely that will become. But assuming that a return-to-form does happen, I’m sorry to say it won’t regain much of the esteem egg-head conservatives like myself once had for you. Certain frontal offenses, and especially during times when every sane voice is needed against a serious threat of a new totalitarianism, are not forgotten.
You evidently don’t like, or have never reflected upon, those songs of recent years, such as “Bloodless” by Andrew Bird, or “Don’t Underestimate Midwest American Sun” by Kevin Morby, which advocate leaving some middle-space where conservatives and progressivists may still converse, or at least laugh and enjoy art together.
However, one thing that would go some way towards mitigating the bad aftertaste here would be for you to use your new clout and money to help Stillman finally make his long talked-about Jamaican film-idea, assuming he still wants to. Think about it!
Let us end with one more Stillman clip, in memory of better times. Here is a single scene, Greta, which is the vanquishing opposite of your whole movie:
One thing feminists in power have proven is Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," (note he did not qualify this statement by gender). And this despite the feminist attempt to brainwash us into believing that women are somehow inherently superior to men in the exercise of power. "Oh if only more women were in political office," goes the feminist cry. "Then all would be well." Okay, let's look at a few during the past three years and see just how well they behaved: Bonnie Henry, Teresa Tam, Deena Hinshaw (three public health officials in Canada during Covid), Jacinda Ardern, Deborah Birx, Rochelle Walensky, Nicola Sturgeon (currently under investigation for her role in Scottish nursing home deaths)... need I go on, at risk of belabouring Lord Acton's point? Of course, feminist ideology will brush this aside by claiming "they were only exercising their authority within an already established patriarchal power structure," as if none of them had any moral agency of their own. Convenient.
The quote you mention, “a kind of free pass to make any kind of wounding or derogatory comment one wants to” ironically, was once said of the patriarchy's attitude to women but it's now perfectly acceptable to do the same to men across the entire cultural spectrum. Meanwhile, men and boys are in crisis, with male suicides at four times the rate of female. I know of two male suicides just during the past month in my remote area of British Columbia, not even near a large metropolitan city where presumably those numbers would be much higher. But arbitrary power has always been heartless and feminist-dominated mainstream media speaks not a whisper of this crisis among males. Presumably, to them, it's not a crisis at all. Messaging such as found in the Barbie movie only exacerbates the situation, with the idiotic subtext that a feminist paradise would lack men altogether. Apparently feminists have yet to get a grasp on basic biology, not to mention sociology, psychology or actual history. The only feminist who has said "All this male-bashing MUST stop" is Camille Paglia, but she seems to have gone silent since the pandemic, and is hated and discounted by her feminist peers anyway.
Lysistrata is all very well but why not turn that on its head? What if all the men in society went on strike? They still do the vast majority of the most dangerous work that keeps civilization ticking—in my region, hydro-electric maintenance crews must brave all weathers at all times of the day and night and difficult mountain conditions to restore power during outages. Most if not all of these are men. The same is likely true of our trains, airplanes, gas plants, oil rigs, etc. I vote for a male Lysistrata strike. See how long it takes the feminists to cry uncle when the amenities they take for granted suddenly aren't there anymore. Civilization is a team effort, ladies. Take half the team away and see how far you get.