Cameron H.

As a parent, I just want to say the "I'm going to get pine cones" is a ploy I would 100% use. Like if I was with my kids and I thought I heard someone trying to break in, I might say something like, "I'm going to check if we have enough cheese sticks in the fridge" or something so I could go check it out. Kids have a tendency to follow you if you don't tell them exactly what you're doing. And since you're an adult and obviously have everything all figured out, they don't question it if you say you're going to do something kind of dumb - which you most likely will since you're probably pretty nervous. The pine cone thing gets her out of the car, allows her to take a breath without panicking the kids, get her bearings, and figure shit out without kids under foot asking a million questions. Even better, she can actually bring back pine cones and say they are going to make Christmas ornaments or something to keep them occupied and set their mind at ease that their mother isn't in the middle of a panic attack.

While I agree that Travolta and Alley's sexual chemistry was off the charts, I did have a bit of an issue when they got back from the restaurant and Travolta seems to be making a move on Alley - in front of their babysitter. That's borderline criminal! As general guideline, I would encourage adults to corral their libidos and not make out in front of teenagers who aren't in a position to leave the situation. Fucking deviants...

One of the weirder moments for me was when Rock's starts seeing for the first time and he laments that all he can see are "wrinkly butts." Setting aside that he doesn't know what eyes are but immediately knows what butts are - and the adjective "wrinkly," apparently - I thought it was really weird that the mama dog makes sure to immediately clarify for him that the wrinkly butts he's seeing aren't hers ("They're not mine. They're your brothers and sisters.") I don't know, it seems like an oddly defensive stance to take with a newborn child.

I guess I’m using “life” as a synonym for “existing” or “surviving. She can go on with Stingo, but it means living with her past - which isn’t what she wants. I guess I just don’t think Stingo is as problematic as everyone else? I feel like he is an essential component to the story whether we like him or not. Honestly, I meant it more rhetorically than hypothetically, but yeah, that’s basically my point. The only person who knows whether he would be capable of writing it from her perspective is the writer. And I would guess, given the results, he didn’t feel comfortable doing that so he wrote it from the perspective of a character surrogate with whom he could 100% relate. My broader point is: if we start making changes, we have to consider the ramifications of those changes. Do they actually improve the movie? Hypothetically, maybe. If we make those changes, and turn SC into something else entirely, does it still end up on a list of great films? I don’t know, but in my view, I don’t think so.

The problem for me is I feel like if we were to re-write the same movie from Sophie’s perspective it actually becomes less about her and more about the men. By that I mean we now have to explain why these two dudes are here. Nathan might be okay, but Stingo’s character would require a major overhaul. This means devoting more screen time into who this guy is and why Sophie likes him - which, in all honestly, would probably also mean a recalibration of Nathan as well. So, yeah, you would be getting more from her point of view - and it would be more about how she feels about the men in her life. The narrator needs to be a bit uninteresting. If he were interesting, he would be writing a story about himself and his life. Stingo’s role is to be boring, be a foil to Nathan, and learn something about life through his experiences with these characters that fundamentally change who he is. Also, with Sophie as POV, it would put a strange emphasis that there’s an equality between her choice in men with the lives of her children, which, to be frank, would be pretty sickening. (e.g. “I had a choice like this before...”) I think the problem is that people keep referring to SC as a “love triangle,” but that implies three equal characters, with two of them being rivals for the third’s romantic affection, and I just don’t see that here. (For one thing, In terms of romantic love, the love triangle in SC isn’t so much a /_\ as a /_/.) As Amy said in the episode, there’s never really a question of who she’ll end up with; however, Amy attributes that to Sophie’s love for Nathan which I absolutely disagree with. Sophie’s choice regarding Nathan and Stingo isn’t really between lovers but between Death and Life. Nathan is the promise of a dramatic life and swift death, and Stingo is the promise of a peaceful and, yes, boring existence - one that would provide her endless, silent hours alone with her thoughts. If there’s a triangle, that’s it. If there’s a choice, that’s what it is - the same choice she’s had to make before. Life and Death. So, how then do you re-write Sophie’s Choice from her perspective while keeping it relatively the same? Do you take Nathan and Stingo out altogether? Just keep Nathan and take out Stingo? But then, who or what provides that same foil to Death? What would be her parallel “Choice” in present day (i.e. 1947)? How does that get set up in an economical and effective way that isn’t distracting or take the focus off of Sophie? Do we not place it in 1947 at all? Do we just follow her along as the events unfold? However, then it’s no longer be a movie about Survivor’s Guilt but about just surviving - which isn’t the story that the writer was inspired to write. So, yeah, I’m sure there are hundreds of way to tell this story differently, but are they more effective than what is presented? Are the same themes present? And perhaps,more importantly, since the actual writer of SC is male, even if the movie was told from a Sophie’s point of view, it’s still ultimately coming from a man’s perspective. You can take Stingo out, but “Stingo” is still writing it. Any change would be superficial at best. All that would really change is our perception. Is the writer of the book/movie even capable of writing a sensitive and thoughtful story from a woman’s point of view that avoids cliche and incorporates not only the complexities of being a woman, but of a post-war, Holocaust survivor? Or is it better that the story is related and filtered through a character that better reflects the writer’s own life and background?

That’s how I felt as well. Through Sophie’s eyes I feel like it would not only be super depressing, but just another basic, linear period piece (A to B to C). Not only that, but I feel like seeing it through her eyes would be like thought bubbles in a comic book. There’s a reason they’ve been mostly phased out. It’s more interesting and engaging when you’re not necessarily hearing every thought and every feeling a character is experiencing as they’re experiencing them. The structure of this movie, essentially peeling back the layers of Sophie’s past (and, to some degree, Nathan’s as well) helps color the previous scenes with new meaning, which I believe, creates a richer experience overall. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but I don’t know that it would have necessarily improved the movie. (Not that I think it needs to be improved. You all know what a hopeless romantic I am. )

Did anyone else think that Olympia Dukakis' pep talk about infidelity was insane? Apparently, her husband was shipwrecked with a bunch of USO girls, but she refused to believe he didn't cheat on her until - years later - she met some of the women and *they* said he didn't cheat on her. Yeah, that sounds healthy. I'm not trying to blame Alley's parents for all their relationship problems, but I feel like at least some of Travolta and Alley's dysfunction should be attributed to them.

Paul seemed to be confused as to why the dogs appeared sound like they were chewing when they were thinking, but I think the confusion is that he and the gang seem to be under the impression that the babies, dogs, wolves, etc. are communicating telepathically. However, I've always been under the impression that they aren't communicating via their mind but rather the words we're hearing is the translation of their own languages - both verbal and non-verbal. That's why in Look Who's Talking Too the children's mouths sometimes move. If you were to remove Bruce Willis and Roseanne Barr's voice overs, as adults, all we would be hearing is baby gurgling, but they are still "talking.". It's the same deal with the dogs. They are just speaking a separate language that only they understand. So, no, the dogs can't speak with or understand squirrels or clouds or whatever. Babies can speak with babies and animals can speak to animals of the same genus. We're just getting a peak into what all their strange noises actually mean.

I'm not sure I'd consider two brief scenes as “too much” in a two and a half hour movie. Especially since I feel like - as parallel scenes - they are important in showing Stingo's maturation. I think people might be placing too much emphasis on Stingo's sex life, or at least, emphasizing the wrong things about the sex scenes. Sex as a metaphor for the transition to adulthood - for both genders - is such an old concept that's it's cliche. Once Stingo is presented with the entirety of Sophie's story, he himself is no longer innocent. He is confronted with the atrocities of the world, he can put his childhood behind him - physically, emotionally, and intellectually. I think what might be a big part of people's problems with the scene are two lines in the voice over. The part where he says he was "22 and a virgin" and the part where he holds her up as a "goddess." And I think this might come down to a misinterpretation based on modern sensibilities. While it might come off to modern ears as "And at long last I was having sex!" it's really about crossing over the threshold into manhood. I feel like him mentioning he was 22 in that context would be like if in a modern film the character said "I was 18." The point of both of the scenes isn't about sex exactly, but his personality growth. The sex is just a metaphor. As far as holding her up as a goddess, while it might seem a bit condescending and chauvinistic, if we look at it with less cynicism, Stingo is saying - after hearing all of the terrible things that Sophie did and had done to her - that he still sees her as he ever did. He sees her for what she really is and he doesn’t care. To him, she's still perfect. Essentially, her story is the refutation of the fantasy "If I had been there with my gun, that shooting wouldn't have happened" and the confirmation of "If you want to know what you would have done when Hitler rose to power, you're doing it now." Sophie was oblivious to what was going on until the day she actually listened to her father's lesson. Once she did, she visited the ghetto and realized that she hated her father, and by extension, her husband. However, despite her progressive views regarding the extermination of the Jewish people, she repeatedly sells them out in order to save herself and her children. So when Stingo admits, after hearing her full story, that his feelings haven't changed, it gives Sophie, a lapsed Catholic, a modicum of absolution. (I don't think the fact that the love scene begins with her on her knees is an accident.) However, even though she might be forgiven by Stingo, and by extension the viewer and perhaps God, she still can't forgive herself - which is what drives her back to Nathan.

Yes! Today! And from what I understand, they did Mac and Me!

Oh, I'll be watching it - albeit with Rifftrax.

I actually think that would be a lot of fun with all of us...

Of the two, "white knight" is definitely the more appropriate term. I think Stingo is a good person. I think his heart is in the right place. I also think he is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of his depth. I think he is doing the best he can from the perspective of his insulated, middle-class, white boy world - whether that's helpful or not is another thing. re: "Romance" That's how I feel about it, too (clearly ) I was talking to a friend yesterday about iTunes sales and told her that Sophie's Choice was listed under "romance" which I felt was insane. And then the episode begins with Paul and his "You got your Romance in my Holocaust movie..." bit and I was like, "Oh no..." ::pushes Sophie's Choice across the table back to Amy and Paul:: Why don't you show me where you think the romance is...

100% It's all wrapped up in this wish to live and a desire to die. He gives her life, but promises death. However, I don't agree that she hides it from Nathan to be "more acceptable." I think, without necessarily knowing it, she senses that he's not exactly stable. An analogy might be that we have some friends we share certain aspects of our lives and others we just go out to clubs with or whatever. She shares her story with Stingo because she trusts him. She doesn't share it with Nathan because that's not the role he plays in her life. I am pretty sure, though, that Nathan is at least partially with Sophie as a kind of a holocaust trophy. Like, he wasn't put in a Concentration Camp and feels guilty about it, so he kind of gets off on being with - and being the savior of - someone who has. You know...like in all the great romances.

Yes! I was thinking that too. Especially since he didn't seem to get a whole lot of respect from anyone up until that point. Like, I get that you shot Spats, but we aren't dogs, that doesn't make you Alpha.

I haven't voted yet. I'm having trouble trying to deciding if I think Jingle all the Way or Jack Frost will be more fun. They're both pretty ridiculous...

Okay, now that we've defended Stingo from being categorized as some kind of angry, misogynistic creep there was another take I kind of had an issue with. I believe Paul was putting forward the idea that Sophie "didn't actually need anyone" and was kind of manipulating people to take care of her. Did I mishear that? Because, man, I feel like that's a really bad take. I'm not saying Sophie isn't smart, or isn't capable, but I'm not sure that she possesses that kind of guile. I think she needs Nathan and Stingo insofar as they give her a reason to live at all. If it wasn't for them, she probably would either be dead from all of the things she was afflicted with or finally committed suicide. I don't know that we need to make her some kind of Machiavellian super hero who just uses the men around her for survival - if for no other reason than I don't feel like after the war survival is her goal. I think Sophie wants peace and forgiveness. Sophie is supposed to be us if we were in that situation: flawed and scared and desperate. And imbuing her with some kind of supernatural ability to exploit people in that way seems to really be missing the point and actually lessens the impact of her story. Yes, she absolutely tries to manipulate people, but I'm not sure if it ever actually works. She tries to use her race, education, and background to save her kids, and ends up getting her daughter killed. She tries to use sex and her background to save her son, and she ends up losing him as well. Also, since I've finished the episode now...I'm not saying Eternal Sunshine isn't a good movie, but if the suggestion is that they are somehow comparable, that's crazy. I cannot stress enough that Sophie's Choice is definitely, 100% not a romance. (No more than The African Queen is a wacky, buddy road trip movie). Just because two people are in a relationship in a movie, doesn't mean it's a romance. That would be like saying Starship Troopers is a porn because there's sex in it. What makes Sophie's Choice special is that there really aren't parallels. As I mentioned in my Letterboxd review, I can't think of another movie, or book for that matter, that really captures that time in history. Usually when we deal with holocaust movies, we're either dealing with it directly or as something that happened in the past. Sophie's Choice is immediate. Here is a survivor. She is two years out of an unimaginable nightmare, what does she do now? Here's a young Jewish man who didn't fight in the war, how does his guilt affect him and his relationships? Here's a writer who has been blessed with a life of blissful ignorance, how does he react when faced with the ugliness of the real world? What it's not about is falling in (romantic) love, dating, and kissing under the moonlight.

Maybe...but he doesn’t seem to me all that interested one way or the other. He seems to legitimately care for Sophie. I feel like incel-ism is inherently narcissistic (e.g. If women won’t have sex with me they must be evil) which I don’t feel like Stingo projects at all. I’d say he’s, at best, mildly frustrated in love, but not debilitatingly so. And it’s not like Stingo is secretly plotting against Nathan the whole time. He loves both of them. It’s not like he’s like, “Of boy, now’s my chance to make my move.” I think he would have been perfectly happy if Nathan and Sophie were together forever. He’s crying just as much for Nathan at the end as he is for Sophie. I just found the whole love triangle take really weird. I never got that at all. And I feel like “Stingo as incel” is really cynical. Not that there’s anything wrong with a healthy dose of cynicism, but sometimes things just are as they appear. There aren’t always ulterior motives. He loves her. As a friend - and maybe more. But he does love her.

Exactly. Most of all, I think the movie as about survivor’s guilt. Sophie not only survived when her entire family was killed, but at least partially did so by employing morally murky methods, and Nathan is a Jewish man who, most likely due to his mental issues, wasn’t able to fight in the war. The subsequent rage that he feels he takes out on his non-Jewish girlfriend. As I said in my Letterboxd review, the movie seems to be making a point that sometimes the cruelest fate is to survive. How do you move on? At the end of the movie, Stingo finds himself - for the first time in his life - faced with the same dilemma. He’s the survivor. “My loved ones are dead, how do I possibly move on?” But he gives us hope with the new sunrise. And we discover that he makes himself the writer he’s always wanted to be (derivative or not). His journey suggests that while we may never fully heal, if we take the lessons we learned from our loved ones, it is possible to live life again.

I’m not done with the episode, but I’m shocked how they feel like Stingo is some kind of interloper into Sophie and Nathan’s relationship. From the beginning, for reasons that are unclear, they are the ones always pulling him into their vortex. Now, if you were to ask Stingo, I’d say *he* would probably say that he was an interloper, but they are the ones coaxing him to play piano with them. He doesn’t just say, Move over, I got this.” They invite him to dinner. They invite him to Coney Island - and not, like, Melvin or any of the other residents of the house. I feel like they see Stingo as being like them - an artist and free spirit- but in desperate need of experience. I mean, another visual metaphor I would point to is the three of them in Sophie and Nathan’s sex hammock. To me, it’s not that he’s a third wheel so much as the whole relationship is somewhat open and fluid. In my opinion, I also wouldn’t classify Stingo as “incel” as that implies a certain level of anger and entitlement that I just don’t feel is present in his character. He doesn’t hate or resent Nathan. He doesn’t act like he’s “owed” anything - at least not to me. I don’t feel like he’s just pretending to be her friend in order to get close. He just feels naive, which is something he tells us right at the beginning. He hasn’t had a life yet and is suddenly faced with two people who have lived too much life. Honestly, I’m still surprised that Amy and Paul (And iTunes apparently) classify this as a romance, but if we are, then I’d say the romance is between all three of them.

Yeah guys are on top of it I was planning on making the thread today. I was thinking the 7th and I’ll put the available Christmas movies up for a vote.

Gather ‘round, everyone! Great news! I’m moving Musical Mondays to Facebook! I didn’t want to say anything until it was a sure thing...Wait, what’s the matter? We watched:

I wouldn’t say “confounded” exactly. I got it, I just wasn’t feeling it. The only thing I didn’t get was why “Angel” was mad at him when she found out he knew her secret. Like, that’s ideal! Now you don’t have to go through the whole “fess up and have him mad at you for lying” thing. You’re in the clear!

This was essentially my take (although I watched it alone and *did* bail a couple of times ). It’s not that it was bad. It’s parts were all solid, but not the sum of the parts. Honestly, I found the plot to be kind of dull. Take out the music, and occasional visual flair, and the plot was a pretty basic Prohibition Era drama. Everything was pretty predictable. I mean, who at this point isn’t like “That’s going to stop a bullet” when a character is handed a Bible? It also didn’t help that André and Boi play most everything so unflappably low energy. Aside from the music, I never really felt like they were in it, and consequently, I was never really in it. It’s not that it was bad, but my focus kept wandering as I watched.

This is it exactly. He said that if the good people of his state learned what was going on, they would burst into the chamber in protest. Taylor was railroading the state press to make him look bad, so they bypassed the official press and just went with his boys. That's why what Paine does is so cruel and what ultimately causes Smith to break. He's confronted with a bunch of letters from his state - the very people he believed would be in his corner - telling him he's garbage, and it's too much.