Gary Ross is not a figure of first floor of the Hollywood world, but it is a good and conscientious craftsman who uses his head and heart to do good things. He has built a career as a writer and has toured as a director, only two films: Pleasantville (1998) and Seabiscuit (2003). I've seen both films with great pleasure, but the first gave me hope .... Yes, because in a world in which good sense, understanding the feelings and love for life do not have much success, I felt a sense of hope seeing these three things well made and well mixed in a single work.
The film was also appreciated, but it has become a myth. I'll try to summarize the core of the story and especially the contents of this little gem that I hope will be seen in DVD players from the blog.
The beginning is bizarre and, essentially, science fiction, two children (brother and sister) today, are "sucked" into a parallel world that is to a sit-com television in black and white fifties. The boy is a fan of series that was revived after a half century to viewers and then, being in that "world" knows all and moves with a certain familiarity. While his sister does it feel like a fish out of water.
Let us now understand the details of that "world". It 's the world of the "average man" in which each character does not aspire to anything other than what is required by tradition and by the rising consumerism. A world in black and white not only in colors but also the emotional. The inhabitants of this world, in fact, being characters of the sitcom, and not people, they know only what we as people can think and feel. They work, dine the evening, wash the car on Sunday. They are always cheerful, gossip and trivia and have no interest in the world outside their town. The world of youth the world is unthinkable in a sit-com era and do not include (as per their own parents) nor sex nor a complete emotional dimension. The boys did not even kiss and talk to their parents' clothes or playing basketball but not much. In simple and reassuring the world that there are social problems, but neither fire: firefighters are called only to recover lost cats.
At school you attend programs oversimplified and did not learn anything about the history of the society in which the country is immerso. La geografia inizia e finisce con le strade di Pleasantville e quando Jennifer (che è calata nel personaggio di Mary Sue) chiede all’insegnante cosa ci sia “oltre” Pleasantville suscita solo un imbarazzo generale. I libri hanno le pagine bianche, dato che non si deve imparare nulla sul mondo, ma si deve solo confermare ciò che si già si conosce di quel microcosmo incantato. Tutto è così compatto, perfettino e “grigio” che non esistono conflitti di nessun tipo e nemmeno domande capaci di trascendere l’ordine dato.
In quegli anni, anche i nostri prodotti televisivi non sollevavano grandi problemi e non riflettevano abitualmente drammi sociali. Miravano quindi a rassicurare and distract people from the problems of society, but also conveyed the content and touched the edges of our culture. In the United States, however, these products were truly hypnotic and television were commonplace in an exaggerated way.
Now, what the director has proposed building this absurd situation with two guys now trapped in an unreal world populated by characters of a simple sit-com of the past without any human depth? The director is proposed to use the situation as a suitable metaphor to represent in an "excessive" rites and myths of real people who now live in the real world of "little" just because they feel and think. The director We then launched an SOS inviting us to be wary of the tendency in all of us to "lose" in the rituals of daily life, the Convention, the chatter, shared habits. A trend that, in a shade less pronounced than the characters of Plesasantville, protects us from feelings making us feel a little pain but also cutting off our ability to rejoice and be really happy.
The two boys (real ones) of the film initially a different attitude. He (David, played by Tobey Maguire) tries not to disturb the established order, assuming that the characters in that world could not tolerate stresses foreign to their mentality. She (Jennifer, played by Reese Whitherspoon) instead is very annoyed by dall'ottusità and respectability of the people are forced to interact and take provocative behavior. In fact it creates a chain reaction due to the behavior "unthinkable" by Jennifer, for this, the characters are the quiet town to deal with stimuli, questions and situations unrelated to their mental coordinates. Gradually, the reality of the town in black and white colors become space.
The film is on track this early, but remains on the surface: in fact, the characters in Pleasantville are not generally disturbed by the "diversity" of these stresses, but they are just deeply shocked by the stimuli that trigger their self-expressive potential of those who, as characters, repressed. And when you "catch" an aspect of their "inner unspoken" take "color". Pleasantville gradually becomes a world of color, as the real and the characters of that world become people with doubts, hopes, joys, sufferings, wants to ask questions, sexual desires, intellectual curiosity.
The film, therefore, is not schematic. Not so elementary repeats the myth of sexual and cultural revolution, or even suggests the idea of \u200b\u200bgenerational revolt or criticism of respectability. Gradually touches all the nodes of our fear of life, from the emotional to the social to the intellectual. Makes this perfectly the idea of \u200b\u200bthe way that each of us needs to do to break free from their chains, very private. The trick of the characters that people have become a disruptive force and thus allows us to ask ourselves what we are willing to live our lives and what we are used to refine them in order to avoid intense and authentic experiences.
not alone. David, who initially does not want to put in a process of destabilization, is still to be addressed by the various characters put in crisis situations arising from Jennifer. This is striking is the delicacy with which David responds to requests (and anxieties) of the characters: it is not proposed as a champion of their "liberation", but it shows care and respect for their fear of change and also to their need for change . Fails to understand that the world is black and white in which the characters lived, and the world in color that gradually they are winning. Nothing, therefore, schematically "revolutionary" (as was almost inevitable in the late '60s). In the film, some leaving the black and retrieve their color freeing their sexuality, others make the same change in reading a book, and others expressing the necessary aggression in the face of abuse and other showing emotion. The film is also shown intolerance of the most "resistant" to change, but such intolerance is carefully analyzed as a reflection of fear. In fact, people who throw stones at a window painted or devalue people "color" or burn the books (which now no longer have the white pages), while expressing many emotions (negative), are in black and white prisoners their fear of life and feelings.
The film does not set a pattern to another, but it shows that we can dispense with the forms. The film, in practice, is a tribute to our potential and not an incitement and predictable changes in rates. The film emphasizes the value of our inner dimension and can be treated with discretion to our habitual tendency to live "characters," is to affirm our need to express ourselves fully as human beings.
Gianfranco
0 comments:
Post a Comment