Skip to main content

Some thoughts on "Bringing Up Baby"



Avneet Sharma: If Justice League is any indication, we'll probably see a lot more male characters you like. Cary Grant in that movie never really gets a handle on Katharine Hepburn... his saying he's in love with her in the end almost comes as an act of self-defence, a defensive spell cast, making it seem as if he's got a handle on everything she can apply onto him (a wild pretence!). For momentarily she is induced into being grateful, or playing being grateful, that is, as if she was at his mercy, his control: and this is a predictable routine, required on her part so that she's not just a phallic woman but a feminine one at source, that gives him a moment where he knows exactly what he'll have to face with her; he can relax. It's a funny thing in this movie. I'm sure the idea is that Cary Grant is supposed to actually need Katharine Hepburn/Susan, for she's the wild, the sex, he's not going to get in his married life with his due wife. But the movie doesn't play out this way in actuality. From the start, his upcoming marriage is about a career of peace and stability, with her (Alice, his determined and stern due wife) the guardian of it, more than anything else. We never have a sense, really, other than his questioning about lack of sex and lack of babies (which is not a big admittance, given that he never in the movie seems one to want to stick to an act of command more than momentarily), that he wouldn't be content with that. He's got stability, and she's the formidable shield that'll keep away all intruders (which is, incidentally, the married life the sex-addict John Updike wished for and got with his second wife... just by the by.) If this sounds horrible to you, just imagine you're a Depression age individual watching a film where the ostensible despised state is someone promised that -- stability, with a fierce shield of a woman protecting it -- rather than a merry-go-round life with an unpredictable nutter, who's a source of instability to the guarantee that any act you initiate will go as planned (sound like Depression life, anyone?)... any act, including ensuring that one step you take follows another as planned, rather than it being subverted to your somehow falling on your ass, and who can only be waylaid, or perceived as perhaps being somewhat waylaid/managed, if you've got a quip ready each and every time she interrupts your nervous system's plans for initiated synapse to actually follow through with its ostensibly inevitable predetermined follow through.


About Justice League... yeah, this spot Cary Grant finds himself in is basically where each character other than Superman is with Wonder Woman. It's the idea behind there being so many male members of the team... the load can get distributed, so Aquaman can feel the relief after he gets subverted against course by her in knowing he's not due for another round for awhile... now's for Cyborg to feel not like a spy but a caught-out perv, and impossible-to-catch Flash to feel like an infant swaddled in arms, however ostensibly gleeful about it, and Batman to feel like a leader who's stuck in dated ways so has to relent to ....


I will say, though, that the extended scene where Cary Grant finds himself at dinner is something Susan leads him to that is an empowering treat for him: he's constantly interrupting people's talk to get up and chase after that dog... who's his lead to the lost dinosaur bone. Amidst the matron at the table and the ostensibly patriarchal big-game hunter, he never loses the ability to keep in mind his original purpose, which is abstract to this Alice-in-Wonderland turnabout in his life, and can be imagined vicariously enjoying his ability to so readily unsettle his fellow dinner guests' expectations of him... play the part of Susan, for awhile, in a sense. Susan set this up, but he can pretend he's in on it too. Two wild agents, rationally causing what amounts to disturbed expectations, chaos, for others.


So maybe the end would be more satisfying is if somehow an ideal could be constructed. His due wife Alice would remain with him as a shield, a protection against inanity and intrusion, and Susan would be equipped as a weapon, something he could unleash against others if his shield failed him and he found himself amongst domestic types -- mothers and fathers -- and domestic situations he has no business as an adult falling back into. She's great for that kind of dire emergency... absolute chaos for use and cover. As an analogy, Susan is first caught site of what the war will soon offer Americans... humiliating, un-manning adult reliance on the like of welfare and parental support to survive, has to meet with what war will confront it with in its requiring the instant subversion of estimations of men as assured dependents, into their surely being something else entirely -- warriors who can ride the war wind.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...