I shall use “Even the Queen” as my source of influence for this next passage. I mentioned that it took a satirical look upon an opposing viewpoint. In particular I believe it stands as support to the idea that sisterhood can be used to resist patriarchy. Even so, I feel that either viewpoint in the story acts as its own kind of “sisterhood”. On one side, the main character and her family, though often in disagreement, gather together to change her daughter’s mind. And yet, that opinion which the daughter had developed still came from another group of women, all who were obligated to stand up for their ideals.

            In the end, either side makes independent decisions. It comes down for these characters to a matter of whether or not they think a woman’s natural cycles signify her true freedom. In either case, Perdita was the subject of change and her final choice was determined by personal opinion. In the end she still had the privilege to do what she wanted, aside from social oppressions from the family. Based on her mother’s attitude, if she had not changed her mind there may have very well been nothing her family could have done to stop her.

            On one hand a group of women have fought for her to join their side and join a “natural” course, while on the other hand, her family, in a more literal sense, her sisters, fought for her well being in a different aspect. Once again, it was summed up by personal opinion in the end.

I have read “Girl” on several occasions, both for classes like this, and once on my own volition. As for the other stories, they were new to me. I have mentioned that I try my best to take a neutral standpoint about almost any issue I see, though I am only human and it is quite impossible not to be moved at all, or be uninfluenced. When it comes down to it, I’d just like the best for everyone. But I suppose this is beside the point for our most recent discussions.

If I have an opinion it is that there are still lessons in this world to learn and though it may not be my job to be loud and expressive just yet, those who take the opportunity, or have a natural talent with voice are important people. Even if an agreement cannot be reached I believe it is necessary to at least listen to others, and with hope, have the same favor returned.

Reading stories like “Girl”, “Even the Queen”, and “The Yellow Wallpaper” which all take obvious, and perhaps different standpoints due to certain backgrounds, of course, is meant to invoke thought. My point is that regardless of relating to these positions, they are highly representative of demographics that exist no matter what. In particular, stories like “Even the Queen” I feel do a proficient job of expressing multiple views, being of course, two different womanly perspectives on natural cycles. It is interesting to see how either side claims to be “freedom”, though it is apparent that the writing is a satirical statement in favor of one side over the other. That, I would say, proves the necessity for observation and acceptance. If I may take the quote from the story: “A free society has to be based on respecting others’ opinions and leaving each other alone.”

I only have a simple opinion on our discussion in regards to Wes Anderson’s inspiration from Zweig. I think it’s a perfectly valid project, simply because as artist it is important to learn and reflect upon the work of others. I have no issue in bringing back old stories to retell, granted if the media is suiting.

Of course, there is a fine line between being inspired and just flat out copying what you see. As an artist it is impossible to learn and shape yourself without first emulating that which inspires you. This is a common artistic technique, what, writing “love letters” to and fro within a community. In my opinion a sign of properly handled influence comes from how influence is integrated. There must be enough of a twist.

A piece must both make its influences obvious, and yet take much from its creator in presentation. But there is also, at least for me, and extent to the “magic”. The first time a story is retold it has its biggest chance to provide a nostalgia factor. Though in recent media, its obvious that artists keep trying to hang on to this aspect. They’re working off of a formula, perhaps along the lines of “Hey, the people already like this story, why bother to come up with anything else?”. Of course, this relies on the existence of storyverses in popular culture.

Fan bases make these things huge. And, yes, there are those who do really enjoy certain worlds and stories, and frankly don’t mind hearing their favorite tales over and over. But for me, that gets old fast. At some point it loses it’s inspirational aspects and simply becomes copying, money preying, a drag.

Directly, I suppose I’m just being bitter about the mass of super hero movies, or fantasy, or action movies using the same characters over and over. But that’s just my opinion. I don’t want to see another King Kong or Godzilla movie. But, I do not in the least see Wes Anderson’s work amongst the same category. I believe he is taking from a quieter source, one that is little looked upon, and is thus healthy for popular culture. And I bet he has no intentions of milking his source dry. In this case, I applaud him.

I have seen both film versions of True Grit, the 2010 rendition being the most recent for me.  After reading the original novel I have concluded in my own opinion that an American western theme is still clearly represented, yet the typical “mold” has been in some ways broken.

For me there is an obvious difference between the characters played by John Wayne and Jeff Bridges. John Wayne is known for being a classic western movie star of his time. It’s not to say that Hollywood and modern media producers do not still romanticize their content, though I believe such “fluffing” was much more prevalent in the 40s and 50s. I believe John Wayne played Rooster as more of a typical “hero” and in that case followed a formula in regards to the usual Western myth, a “cowboys and Indians” sort of element that came popular with his time.

Of course, today those stereotypes have been exposed for their faults. I believe Jeff Bridges depicted Rooster’s idea in a more accurate way to what a man of the time might have been. In the past there were much more prevalent gender roles, of which were socially reflected to a degree in the time that John Wayne was an actor. Audiences of that era were expected to see that Wayne’s Rooster was “just doing his job”. A man was supposed to be tough and it wasn’t questioned. But I feel we question Bridges’ Rooster and that we are obligated to do so anyway. The Coen Brothers film exposes the hardships of the time that the film is set. But in this sense it feels like a more realistic depiction to me.

So, True Grit still goes on about tough characters surviving in a tough, new world, but over all I think that the main character’s gender plays a huge role in breaking it out of the usual myth. In comparing the two movie renditions, I feel that the first caters toward a more ordinary Western, while the latter displays a much clearer, pragmatic view on the environment of the time. Like anything, it depends on perspective how you might form an opinion. I do personally prefer the Coen Brothers film. And on a side note I was happier about the more accurate age of Mattie’s actor in it versus its predecessor. I believe part of the earlier’s casting choice also came from the tendencies of the time.

Here we are, a ramble about Pride and Prejudice.

To be honest, prior to this assignment I had never read, or watched any form of Pride and Prejudice. After reading the book I decided to watch the movie starring Keira Knightley and I even tried a little bit of the 1995 BBC (thank you, Amazon Video). I think it was necessary for myself to see multiple interpretations because I have a sort of humorous bias about life. Sometimes it takes me a bit of effort to see past my own feelings. But in that case, I have this to say:

No matter what we have a tendency to super impose our personal ideas onto what works we see. It's for the same reason that art is most often only determined by opinion and cannot produce a definite answer. And in this situation I think the relationships presented in Pride and Prejudice are very much relevant to our generation. It is not uncommon now for families of many social statuses to push expectations and assumptions down on their members.

Relevant to Elizabeth's cause, I have been in similar places in my life. Perhaps not to the same degree, but some people expect so much out of a person. They nitpick about appearance, or attitude despite there being no real issue. It can still be tough to be yourself without others pressuring you, and in that pursuit I feel Elizabeth is an important role model.

Romance in more socially developed areas may not function as it does in this book, but we can still see similar common worries between any gender today. Of course today’s society has become more accepting and people are more likely able to partake in what feels natural to them without ridicule. Not that society is perfect yet, and that is another reason why the lessons in Pride and Prejudice still apply. Without observing habits of our past, how can we take the first steps to changing them?

            My final opinion on the book is that I am glad to have finally read it and in comparison to the movie, or the TV series, of course it was better. Though I didn’t mind either of the film productions. The series was obviously less dramatic, a bit hokey to me, but that’s what made it fun to watch. And I suppose it some sort of way it made it easier to “chew”.