Change Your Image
jaymaloney
Reviews
Rambling Rose (1991)
A fine little film. but here's a question about ...
First of all, I gave it an 8 out of ten. The acting was really quite wonderful all around, and Laura Dern can absolutely steam up a room. Her Rose was always sweet and always on a sexual hair-trigger. She was a bit dim-witted, but always quite endearing.
And even this warm, feel-good, sweetheart of a film made me think...
So here's the question: If a young adult woman gets into bed with a thirteen year-old boy, and then allows him to fondle her to orgasm, does that make her a criminal? In this day and age, the answer's yes. But every person commenting on the film (rightfully) loves Rose, and loves her motives.
and consider this: Would there ever be a film where a young adult male gets into bed with a thirteen year-old girl, and where one or the other fondles the other to orgasm, and the film goes on to develop that adult male into a sympathetic character? The answer is No. Such a film produced in the 1930s or today, would have had the perp rightfully jailed or rightfully shot.
Now,it seems to me, that while Rose today would go to jail, in more sensible times Rose would not be a sexual offender. In fact, I figure that the boy would be universally recognized as one really lucky fellow. But our current social norms would see poor steamy Rose placed under arrest.
In today's wacky, feminized legal system (in which ideology must regard males and females as always the same, all the time), Rose would have to be regarded as a criminal, simply because any male who had a sexual relationship with a minor female is a criminal --and rightfully so.
In this wacky, feminized time, we read all about fabulously gorgeous 20-something high school teachers who get arrested for having sex with under-age boys. A generation ago, what would have been a boy's fantasy come true, is now portrayed as a boy's nightmare. Talk about screwing around with a kid's head!
Is there anything at all about 1932's Buddy that is so different from young teenage boys of today? If not, how can the encounter between Buddy and Rose be so okay in the eyes of every commentator (and in my eyes, too, by the way), while similar encounters today between 14-15 year-old boys and 30 year-old women is now called a "crime"?
What am I missing here?
It Runs in the Family (1994)
A formula sequel film
"A Christmas Story" is one of many people's all-time most beloved films. ACS was able to take the viewer to a time and a place in such a way that very few films ever have. It had a sweetness and goodwill to it that is rare.
So I awaited (and awaited) its sequel, "It Runs In The Family" . The film was almost released a couple of times, only to be pulled at the last minute. When it finally came out, IRITF was (and is, I guess) a total failure.
The sets and cinematography were just fine, but the directing totally, completely missed the mark. The film was nothing more than a cash-flow formula of lazy casting, lazy writing, and disconnected acting.
The narrator, Jean Shepard, who was one of America's great humorists and story-tellers, forced upon us a false reprise of the warm wit he used in ACS. He over-emoted, and why he did that I'll never know. He somehow managed to become an annoying, overwrought parody of himself.
The writing and acting in IRITF is inauthentic and forced. The actors may have seen ACS, but whatever wit and nuance that was in ACS mustn't have registered at all on any of them. The acting was embarrassingly slapstick and bereft of any of Shepard's dry humor.
ACS will always be a real treasure, but to call IRITF a sequel is to insult all of the fans of Jean Shepard and ACS.