I watched Where the Heart Is last night. It's been a favorite of mine since the first time I saw it in 2000 and had to immediately buy the book because I loved it so much. And as I was rewatching it last night, I learned something about myself.
I'm anti-pretentious. I am un-elitist. I am completely fine with that.
I enjoy media that is designed for the masses. Indeed I prefer it over media that is produced for the elitist crowd. Sure, I can enjoy indie music when my roommates listen to it at home, but when I am alone in my car I would much rather spin a CD that will make me dance or sing. Though I love The Books and Broken Social Scene, I would rather rock out to Danity Kane or Maroon 5 anyday.
I've been thinking about how I felt while I was watching Where the Heart is last night. I cried with Novalee when Americus was stolen and with Lexi when her boyfriend abused her and her children. I clutched my pillow when the tornado swept away Americus' bear and Sister Husband (and almost took Americus and Novalee too). I actually laughed out loud when Novalee told the baseball team to untuck their shirts. And when Novalee and Forney embraced at the end of the movie, I felt the way I imagine it would feel to be swept off my feet. All of this emotion in a two-hour movie seems excessive, I know, but I thrive on these types of feelings.
It's the reason I like gimmicky movies so much. When I laugh at a punchline in a movie, I feel a connection to all the other people who laughed at the same line. When the prey overcomes the hunter in a horror movie I feel a wave of satisfaction that I assume (at least some) other people feel when they watch it. This connection, this sense of fulfillment that I get from movies, TV, music, is something that I hope I never lose the ability to feel.
If I closed myself off to media that wasn't entirely intellectual, if I only let myself watch things that appeal to the most elite of viewers, I would lose a hell of a lot. I like feeling as connected to as many people as possible. Though it's fulfilling to have similar moments when watching an indie movie or listening to an incredibly talented, lesser-known vocalist, the group of people who can share these feelings with me is far smaller.
For a while I was embarassed about my love for trashy reality TV and B horror movies and Janet Evanovich, but why should I be? I can get down with Regina and The Science of Sleep and Aimee Bender too. I'm more cultured than any hipster (and by that I mean conforming non-conformist) could ever be.
And besides, I don't have enough money to be a hipster.
6 comments:
I adore you.
Yay! I thought i might get chewed out for this one. But of course not by you Rach. You already know my style. You watched Stick It with me.
I heart Stick It more than any grown woman should.
Good thing I'm not grown. ;)
You are indeed far cooler than any hipster. As I already rambled on about, my only real contention is this idea of the snobbery of wealthy people being synonymous with anyone who isn't too keen on mass culture (for any of the bazillion reasons to not be too keen on mass culture). It's an argument that (rich) guys like bill o'reilly use in really ugly ways to polarize people for political reasons, exploiting people’s pride in not being snotty upper-classers (like he is). People should be proud of being non-pretentious. But there’s nothing good about anti-intellectualism, and though I sure-as-hell don’t accuse you of it (it would not go my way if we compared gpas), it’s a very real side-effect of all the righteous class warfare rhetoric that’s been injected into the debate over mass culture. People in the indie scene are probably very pretentious. But the idea that listening to FM radio controlled meticulously by elite corporate billionaires is somehow anti-elitist, and that listening to obscure, unsigned musicians that barely make enough to feed themselves and rely on word of mouth is somehow elitist, is just a little fishy to me.
Sorry to be chewey-outy on your blog; it's an issue I'm passionate abbout!
No worries, Mike. Passion is where good debates come from. This idea of the snobby wealthy being synonymous with the anti-mass culture types is a new facet of the argument that I had never even considered. I've never associated elite tastes with wealth. Since I'm not into politics, and I've never seen an episode of O'Reilly, I had no idea that this was a spin that could be played. Thanks for alerting me to it.
And perhaps "elitist" carries with it some negative connotations, but I completely respect people who have elite tastes (that is, they prefer to surround themselves with media that is intelligent and meaningful, and therefore in our culture probably a little obscure). My only worry comes when listeners/viewers are so anti-mass culture that they close themselves off to it completely. Without exposure to media of many different levels I doubt than anyone can make a completely accurate decision about preference.
If I didn't read a cheesy mass-market paperback every now and again, I would lose the very serious appreciation I have for Faber and Ondaatje.
Now I'm the one whose gotten all rambly, but these are things that occured to me after the original post. And not everyone has to read Sparks to know that Vonnegut is far superior; I just think it is an effective means of gaining perspective, and culture.
Well put. A bright day for cultural diplomacy!
Post a Comment