Reflecting on many interesting concepts - consider the following:
childhood and adulthood
innocence and experience
1950s and 1990s
conformity and freedom
censorship vs. openness
Director Gary Ross stated in an interview
“This movie is about the fact that personal repression gives rise to larger political oppression. That when we're afraid of certain things in ourselves or we're afraid of change, we project those fears on to other things, and a lot of very ugly social situations can develop.”
(http://www.imdb.com/reviews/149/14904.html)
Would you choose to live in a 'Pleasantville' world, or in our modern society with all our problems?
Please read this article about Pleasantville on 'Reel Change':
http://reelchange.net/2012/04/22/the-most-liberal-movie-of-all-time-pleasantville/
>>Comment on any of the above by Monday
I would personally prefer to live in our modern world, even with all of its problems, because at the very least, we’re aware of these issues – not trying to disregard them and sweep them under the carpet. We accept that they are there, and we’re willing to deal with them every day. And though people have disagreements upon certain points, like same-sex marriage, at least we’re making progress and changing. At least we’re seeing beyond the borders of where we are, who we are, and what we are.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with a “Pleasantville” kind of world is that it rigidly constricts itself and suppresses itself in order to keep a certain level of peace, a standard. And if something goes wrong, as we saw in the movie, people will freak out and there will be chaos.
In a Pleasantville world, ignorance is bliss. People happily go about their lives unaware of what lies beyond, represented by the fact that all roads lead back to Pleasantville. It’s an isolated world – a bubble - oblivious to the outside. The world itself is fragile, because if anything from the outside got in, just as David and Jennifer got into Pleasantville, the bubble would pop - it would cause a change in the world. And that is what many people condemn in the beginning, like Big Bob (the president of the Chamber of Commerce).
And sure, there are some people who do change in the film, because they’re more accepting of themselves and the changes to and around them. They’re unlike people like Big Bob, who have reached a certain point in their lives where what happens around them is what has to happen. Nothing else, nothing more. They can’t accept change, because they prefer the world as it is, rather than how it can be. If Pleasantville is doing okay, why does it need to be changed, right? It reminds me of that saying - “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But change is bound to occur. Look at the 1950s, which the TV sitcoms that influenced Pleasantville were based on, and look at how it's changed from the '60s, '70s, all the way to now.
Plus, change happened to make Pleasantville what it is, didn’t it?
Great job - you're right in your analysis. In a world of continual change we have people like Big Bob around - people who reject everything, who refuse to accept change and become petrified in maintaining the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the film to me is its biblical conceit: an allegory to Adam and Eve and the story of the creation of man from the book of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteThe TV repair man, the god-like figure in the film, is fascinating to me. What motivates this character? He creates a situation in which change is going to occur by inserting David and Jennifer in the world of Pleasantville.
In the book of Genesis, why is there a "forbidden" tree of knowledge--why create temptation in the first place? In some ways, this implies that humanity's own efforts to leave behind ignorance and enter a realm of knowing is a prideful act: in other words, our efforts to progress as people is akin to imitating god, an all-knowing being. Obviously this is an impossible goal, and one that often causes unrest, but if the creation story in Genesis is to be believed, this is the human condition: an on-going process of learning and change.
The TV repair man, or god if you will, must know that we humans all lose our innocence. To me, this simply describes the burden of truth: to know is to remove oneself from innocence, a state of naivety.
I was wondering about the repairman at the end, too, because the last time we see him, he smiles, exactly or almost exactly like we saw him right before/after Jennifer and David get sucked into the TV in the beginning of the movie.
ReplyDeleteHe drives away at the end, seemingly satisfied, though the previous time we saw him, he was angry that Jennifer and David were changing Pleasantville. It was weird to see the contrast between his previously hating the changes he sees to smiling after the changes were made, and I still don't understand why he does that. Was he convinced by David's arguments in court, maybe?
Thinking about it, added with your point about the TV repairman already knowing that humans lose their innocence, also made me think about why he chose David in particular. Could the repairman have been looking for someone innocent, or yearning for innocence, if knowing is so painful/harmful? In the beginning of the film, David is fascinated by Pleasantville, and enjoys watching it, as it seems happier and nicer than the environment he is living in. Is he pining for a more innocent time, free from the harsh truths of reality? Is the repairman similar to David in this way? Is that why the repairman grants him the ability to become an actual part of Pleasantville?