TK-421
18hr ago
Even in a city as large as New York, the very hub of anonymity for the time, reputation is important, and traditional morality still has its enforcers.
There is textual evidence in the film that this was either real or the characters believe in it enough to alter their behavior. Specifically, at the end of the film Baxter has his big hero moment when he refuses to let Sheldrake use the love pad. That's not important. Sheldrake is insistent that he still be given access to the Apartment Of Anonymity - even though his wife left him after she overreacted to him being a popular guy and laying it down. He says that he's going to go after Fran now that his wife is out of the picture.
But he still is not willing to risk doing so outside the safety of The Apartment if he can help it.
Challenged me to write a post about The Apartment before Christmas.
Haha, I don't know if it was a challenge. You're absolutely right that The Apartment is a great movie. I had a whole plan for my review that would use a vigorous defense of office affairs as its spine. It's cool you did it even though it robs me of the mic. Yours was a better post than mine would have been anyway. I enjoyed it.
it must have been very close to creating the template for the bawdy office Christmas party trope.
That's an interesting question. It does have a distinctly modern "this is a movie office Christmas party" feel. Office Christmas parties generally, however, are attested as far back as A Christmas Carol. My strong suspicion is that The Apartment may or may not have created some iconographic imagery that other films copied but the reason they all look the same is because they're depicting a (sometimes heightened depending on film) real thing. Office Christmas parties are the template for the office Christmas party trope generally and movie offices are often visually mid-century modern. I do miss a nice in office Christmas party. Any combination of the workplace and alcohol. It annihilated my first marriage and slammed multiple human lives into a brick wall. Still a good time.
Baxter is a cuck in almost every sense of the term.
Fascinating. I see what you're gesturing at, I do. And by any colloquial use of the term, sure, he's a cuck. I don't care about the feelings of a fictional character.
But I think by trying to map the character to the cuck archetype and Fran to the cock carousel aficionado you're making assumptions that are not supported by the text.
Take Fran - it's been a few days since I rewatched the movie but I count two men that she's definitely slept with: her jailbird husband and Sheldrake. That is: her husband and a man she's only still with because she's convinced he'll leave his wife and enter into a long term monogamous relationship with the expectation of marriage. Wholesome.
People in the office gossip about her once it's known she's been to The Apartment. That's gossip. It's part of the critique the movie is leveling at superior - subordinate shenanigans. Textually, she's no angel by having an affair with a married man but I'm pretty sure the film never states that she's done it before. Unlucky in love does not imply she's been raw dogging strangers in alleys. Her husband is in prison, she's emotionally devastated by the affair, and her first kiss was in a cemetery. That's plenty. As a Christian you're welcome to describe a woman sleeping with two men while in separate relationships with each as being "run through" if that's appropriate in your culture. It is not in mine.
Now for that little cuck Baxter. Yes, he's shown as being in a subordinate role. It's a load bearing part of the story. He literally is the subordinate of most of the men he's interacting with and the movie is about the relationship between subordinates and their betters (you filthy proles).
Hierarchies are real, were much stricter at the time, and are a major point of emphasis of the film. Baxter isn't a cuck because he goes to sleep in his used bed. He's tired, working his way up the ladder, and he's a Yes Man. There are benefits to that - it is explicitly stated he's doing it for advancement, not a psychosexual thrill as one would expect of the cuckold, and does in fact get his reward - but costs too. The movie is showing both sides. You do what you have to do to advance: then its your turn to drunkenly bang the young ladies in your subordinates apartment. Until he gets promoted and then he, etc.
Baxter is interested in Fran, absolutely. She stands him up for a quasi-date, fine. People went on a lot more lower stakes social activities back then - pornography distribution technology was primitive.
But Baxter is never shown to be in a romantic relationship with Fran. She is in actual love with Sheldrake. Who she is in a relationship with. (This point and her suicide attempt were going to be a big part of my analysis. Yes, yes, it's all good fun to partake of the office supplies. You should do your utmost to stick to the ones who absolutely know the score and want what they're going to get and you must not lead them on. None of that applies to Fran.) Sheldrake's trysts with Baxter might be a little insulting - he's into the lady, it's his apartment, blah blah blah. Not really the same as a random guy breaking your wife's back while you swallow sadness in the basement. Baxter is a Nice Guy. He's actually not really a cuck unless you extend his desire for Fran into actual possession without any say from her about it.
"Even after he learns that Jeff (married father of two) has been carrying on a long-term affair with his love interest Fran Baxter keeps letting Jeff go at his one true love in the apartment."
This statement is incorrect at its load bearing sections. Yes, Jeff is married and has kids. That doesn't enter into the cuck equation for Baxter. Yes, Fran is portrayed as Baxter's love interest. That does not give him a retroactive owner's pass to her vagina. If your problem is that he lets Sheldrake use the apartment to be with Fran I will be forced to point out that Baxter quits to prevent that very thing once he's both gained a spine and emotionally connected with Fran. When she really is his love interest and past the hormonal crush phase - exactly what do you think is attracting Baxter to her that's different than Sheldrake at first? Does that mean that Fran is also Sheldrake's "one true love"? - he acts like it. If Baxter's actually a cuck we're all getting cucked any time a woman we might hypothetically be interested in has sex with another person.
P.S. And small culture war take it's interesting to think about how much technology replaced thousands of jobs represented in this film
Good observation. An underrated aspect of watching old films is getting little glimpses of a world that was.
If Sisko was white, it would not make the show any worse.
Ummmm, ackshually, this is demonstrably untrue for at least the episode Q-Less. Q was accustomed to pasty ass Starfleet officers like Picard. He was not prepared for fisticuffs with a real one.
Edit:
In 20 years, they'll be telling us that black Samurai lead in Japan is also perfectly acceptable.
Games, like movies, are a combination of creative / cultural and economic objects. Whether something is acceptable is entirely down to individual preference.
I'm a huge fan of intentionally inserting minorities incongruously in historical adjacent works if there's even a fig leaf. Overlord (2018) is not historically accurate - the Nazis did not have a zombie program to the best of my childhood History Channel viewing knowledge. And there weren't black paratroopers at D-Day either. Cultural works, unless specifically designated, are not historical fact. Provided that the actual facts are widely available to anyone who has any interest, is there some deep wound you're inflicting on the now dead white paratroopers by pretending that black people weren't legally discriminated against through WW2?
The only way to determine whether something a game/movie has done is "acceptable" is tracking sales.
TK-421
3d ago
Consider it stuck. I have regret for some actions for personal reasons that make them actually regrettable for me. I don't think I'm trying to curry favor with the radfems - as you correctly note, they would happily take my balls for all kinds of things I have done, will do, and functionally cannot change as they're part of the body I didn't chose to be born into but also don't condemn - but my own motives should always be most suspect.
Reader, you should listen to Tintin here. They are speaking the truth in the parts they are correct, which in this case are the important parts.
But I'm not pretending. I agree they have points that are correct when the evidence shows they have points which are directionally correct. You did too. It is good that we both believe that we don't need to prevaricate or feel regret about saying true things.
TK-421
4d ago
I don't like the fuzziness of your argument, the lack of conceptual boundaries.
I'll correct you in a moment about it being my argument - the thing I'm trying to convey are the observations behind the arguments, any interpretation / argument / conclusion I make ("the gods struck down Diane Keaton as just retribution for her poor hospitality") should be assumed as for rhetorical effect and unimportant in its details or accuracy - but: same. I too dislike the fuzziness, the lack of conceptual boundaries.
Do I need to even write out the punchline here? Best start believing in ghost stories, Reeves-ian "whoa", facts / feelings, etc.
Disliking the fuzziness of the underlying reality is a matter of taste. Like all likes or dislikes. Understand that now, right now, you're telling me that you're too emotionally upset about the possibility that reality itself is fuzzy and lacks conceptual boundaries to process that as a possibility.
That may not have been your intention. Read your actual words again from the eyes of someone with no access to your thoughts, feelings, or intents. Internally, in your own feed, you should stick a gigantic mental flag every time you feel yourself going down a path that begins with "I don't like" and it isn't something like picking ice cream flavors. You may still be totally correct in your conclusions. You should be very suspicious of yourself though.
Anyway - the reality is fuzzy. Sorry. And they're not my arguments.
"The human body" does not make me residually responsible for the violence of others.
I apologize if you got the impression that I was saying it did. If you re-read my post with the understanding that I'm absolutely sincere when I tell you that I agree with everything you said about no residual guilt or responsibility, you'll see that we're saying the same thing. I used a fleshy appendage metaphor. But we are so close in our thoughts here that you could pluck them from one of our brains, transport them to the other, and neither of us would even notice that it wasn't "our" thought. We agree because it is correct. It is obviously and fundamentally true.
Yes, many radical leftists / rightists / feminists / chauvinists are correct in some parts of their critiques and then go off into crazy town when they try to ascribe meaning or responsibility to these things. You should not feel any guilt - I do not feel any guilt - over things for which you are not responsible. Your sexuality is one of those things. Doesn't matter if that cashes out into accepting someone for being gay or a statistically average heterosexual man. The conclusions are completely reversible because the underlying reality is always the same: people aren't responsible in many significant ways for who they are. They are responsible for their choices in a practical, we didn't choose to live together but we are, and self-improvement / locus of control sense. But they will fuck up badly and every one of them has fucked up badly and judging someone because their fuck up is a different shade of retarded than your fuck ups is ridiculous.
But even the bug nuts craziest people are correct when they say something that is correct.
TK-421
4d ago
you're a man who fucks interns ffs - this is a jews for hitler situation. Do you realize these broads want you castrated? Don't sleep in.
A man who fucks, wants to fuck, or would fuck interns under a pretty broad range of circumstances can be shortened to "man". Are you a man? If so, do you seriously deny the impulse?
I'm sure plenty of broads want me castrated. Plenty of [redacted] would be thrilled to [redacted]. I live in a diverse city. Yes, the tacos are good but the real benefit is knowing for sure that I'm never far from people who would, if they but knew me and could get away with it, kill me. 1 dedicated weirdo has a 99%+ chance of taking me out. 2+ and we're at quantum fluctuation levels of likelihood that I'll be able to stop them. It bothers me not at all to know that admitting to - horror of horrors - being by default attracted to a 23 year old over a 45 year old. Doesn't say anything about any given 23/45 pair and it doesn't mean I can't find a lot to appreciate about older women. But not by pretending that reality isn't what it is.
Anyway, I know what I did and what I didn't do. My entire department was also broad strokes aware as was HR - as they worked in it, I was not able to keep anything from them even if I'd wanted. Nobody's decision making skills are 100% when drinking their way through a prolonged divorce and I can defend everything without endorsing or being proud of it. It sure as shit wasn't seemly, no. That was the point. It was an inappropriate but nowhere near illegal age gap. Sometimes people want inappropriate things. God himself can cast me in a lake of fire if he really wants and I'll go pissing and screaming - but I can't say I'll agree with his decision.
(Edit: this background awareness of the violent possibilities of your neighbors / community must be how Jewish people feel. Their hypersensitivity is an obvious trauma reaction and isn't something that could be stopped if they wanted to - and I'm not sure why they should want to, all things considered.)
I should give radfems credit for recognizing something obvious?
Yes. They are acknowledging that there are deep, unbridgeable divides between the sexes. That men and women are fundamentally not the same. This is not a convenient fact and not everyone is willing to come out and say it. See: "sports, trans".
So you think radfems are educating women about the biological preferences of men?
I think lots of things have been done that can be described as broadly radfem and some of them include educating other women about men, yes. We are not born with an innate understanding of every fact in this world. The opposite. There are many, many facts that people would do well to internalize before experience forces the issue. Regrettably, the more important lessons are often the ones most difficult to act on. You should eat better and exercise more. Me too.
By default, women are not going to understand men's sexuality. Men and women are different, remember? Because they are, by default, also attracted to men they will find it very difficult to internalize some of these facts. The dissonance causes some women to go all the way to the extreme: think of your stereotypical literal man castrating radical feminist. They're all the way at 100. I'm not saying or implying that their maximal claims are true. I'm saying that you don't need to start sanding away the extremes until you come to simple, true facts.
Take your example: "desire is sex is rape". I'm sure there are some people who would accurately be described as radical feminists who do or at some point have believed the most extreme version of this statement. There are quotes. They've said it, I take them at their word. And that's much too far. You're correct that it's plainly false.
But I know the statistics that go around These Spaces. Men are more violent. Period. We can debate the causes all we want but this is a fact. For whatever reason, men on average are significantly more violent than women. If you don't believe statistics, trust the human body. Look at its structure. Squeeze the glands. Would you say that the male of that species is more predisposed to violence?
I would. I don't understand how it could be otherwise considering our evolutionary history. But if you need personal testimony - behold, I am an average man, and there are dozens of nights I can remember where a little extra alcohol at the wrong time or one too many bad memories in sequence and I might have expressed myself through violence. That doesn't count the nights I don't remember.
(I don't feel bad about this - my tone should not be read as confessional. I'm the fleshy appendage at the end of a very long line of decisions I did not make. I had zero input into most of the most significant decisions that shaped the broad contours of my likely development. Not all of them turned out great - it never does. Too bad, so sad.)
The question at the core of "desire is sex is rape" is: do you really think that deeper than bone deep difference in violent tendencies stops at the dick? It does not. Men's sexuality, like women's sexuality, entails danger. From men that danger often manifests as violence and it is inextricably bound through human biology / psychology to the reproduction process. How could it be otherwise? You don't need to agree with everything they're saying to agree with the bits that are, in fact, true.
TK-421
4d ago
I didn't mention it for prurient interest. It seemed like a relevant personal detail to substantiate my argument.
But are you asking if I slept with people I didn't think were attractive? Fair if so - who hasn't? - but this was not one of those times, no.
TK-421
4d ago
Value in what sense? Calling attention to the fact? I agree with you - and though I am not a radical feminist I will presume to mansplain on their behalf - and the radfems agree with you too that it is a fact. Their core point isn't that the film is implanting the misogyny. Sure, it does reify it. Cultural artifacts are meant to be transmitted outward and downward. Their point is that you are right: these things are inherent facts about the world and men's sexuality. The filmmakers used those cues because they work and they work because that actually is how men feel and you agree with that because that actually is how you feel and I agree too because that actually is how I feel. I do dislike SJP because of her horseface in that movie. I'm just so offended by the family's dickishness and familiar enough with scene composition to still see what's going on.
Radfems are saying "uh oh" when you say "oh well". That's an understandable reaction when you actually are the prey.
Andrea Dworkin (1946–2005)
- "Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine."
- "Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it."
This is pushing it to the extreme. But - as an average man I agree that there is an element of what they're describing inherent to male sexuality which is present in varying degrees in individuals. When you look at the world as it exists through this lens, you tend to find evidence that the distribution is not skewed towards the lower end. Yes yes; keys and street lamps, if ye look ye shall find. The fact that you agree with them on the underlying facts and there is such abundant evidence, however, is strong Bayesian evidence that you should update towards their positions. That doesn't mean you have to accept their conclusions or framing. But they do seem to have a point at a factual level.
TK-421
5d ago
The radfem angle is the generalized radical feminist / woke / po-mo / identitarian media criticism.
Visual language in a film is not accidental. These are professional story tellers using specific techniques to evoke specific feelings and thoughts in the viewer. Even if you want to argue that the choices are subconscious all you're saying is that the visual language is a tangible representation of ingrained misogyny. A patriarchal society will, whether it wants to or not, represent its values in its cultural works.
What does the visual language in The Family Stone convey? SJP's character is shown as bony, angular. The lighting gets harsher and the makeup more naturalistic throughout the film. The film is telling you that this woman is unlikeable. You are supposed to viscerally hate her. To do this she is depicted as old.
Claire Danes gets nicer light. More loving shots. She's warm and inviting. SJP is a hag that insists on accommodations for her needs. Claire Danes intuitively wants the same thing as the Man. She is obviously and unmistakably younger and more beautiful visually.
Combine this with the narrative itself. We do get some nicer shots of SJP at the end: when she's wearing the clothes of and is enmeshed with the family. She obviously can't get the Man - she will need to make do with the stoner, rapist brother - but she at least gets some visual dignity. Provided she strips away everything that made her who she was and adopt the visual signifiers and behaviors of the family.
The message that these professional artists wanted to transmit to the future? Old women are irritating and lose their value as they age. You are right to dislike them.
TK-421
5d ago
"because horseface and annoying"
Even I, a 40 year old divorced man who sincerely misses in-office work because I did have age gap inappropriate sexual relationships with interns and that's harder to do now, thought the movie was too obvious in its direct contrasts of the sisters. Until SJP switches to clothes the family approves of at the end, we see her in less and less flattering light and makeup as the film progresses. She is made visibly uglier right around the time 2005 Claire Danes shows up. Watch how those two are visually depicted and you'll start to see that radical feminists were not making everything up.
Claire Danes is the fantasy character of the creative class men who finance and create films. Young, eye meltingly hot, and her brain can instantly be turned off by uttering a few words about deep artistic yearning. She will stand in the dark with you and describe her satisfaction seeing a totem pole erected, filling a hole in the soul of the man who thrust it into the air, penetrating the heavens. A massive, solid, powerful totemic symbol of...something. A mystery for the ages.
The SJP character makes no sense but the actual version of that woman would not be so stupid to not realize that men who talk like Dylan McDermott in that scene are indeed possessed with an overwhelming need to fill a hole but it ain't the one he's talking about.
(It's her mouth and/or genitals. In case it wasn't plain. He wants to fuck her.)
TK-421
5d ago
The Apartment is a banger - excellent taste, zoink. Either you post an analysis by Christmas or I will.
Yes, my OP was thin. I was too blinded by anger and disgust towards Diane Keaton to engage further with the subject matter. You're correct that they are cruel to SJP's character for minor transgressions - but they're also cruel to her for perceived transgressions. This is the interesting Culture War aspect to me. It's a visual depiction of microagressions vs. actual aggression made by people who, I suspect, really did empathize with the family.
If you watch the film closely from the beginning, you'll see that SJP does not have to do anything to be mistreated. They hate her because of who she is. Then they impute motives that did not exist towards actions that were not aimed at them to justify their tribal, insular, elitist behavior. They give this poor woman shit because she uses different kinds of luggage. They've already done more than enough to justify a multi-generational blood feud before they get to the freak out because she suggests that things which cause extra difficulties in life - like being gay in the early 2000s or literally fucking handicapped because you're deaf and Diane Keaton has to throw things at you to get your attention because you are missing a default human sense, things which are disabling are actually bad in some aspects of life you dumb fucks - are things that perhaps should be avoided.
At no point did she denigrate someone for being gay or deaf. At no point did she imply that the gay/deaf people at the table were not worthy of love. But the family reacts based on what they think SJP is saying and are then incapable of hearing her actual words.
They let her make an entire dish with mushrooms and at no point mention that someone in the house has a deadly allergy. This is the allergy sensitivity faction getting their 5 minutes. How dare she not magically divine that he has allergies? The person with the allergy or their family has no obligation to inform others of this important fact. It's everyone else's responsibility to protect the poor baby.
It's implied that she's mocking the deaf man or calling him retarded by speaking slowly and clearly. This is exactly what you're supposed to do to facilitate lip reading. She does not know his fluency at it and she's trying to help him. The framing of the shot lets you know that we're supposed to think SJP is the asshole here.
ETA: There's also a strong Longhouse vibe running throughout. The atrocious behavior towards SJP and the resulting heavenly retribution could have been avoided if Coach wasn't such a pussy in this movie.
However - I think the juicier culture war angles are actually closer to The Apartment than the HR Ladies Home Journal. SJP's boyfriend and his brother are walking manifestations of actual toxic masculinity. They are actual predators who engage in predatory behavior. But the film can't see what it is literally putting on the screen because it thinks they're good people.
The Brother:
- Takes advantage of SJP's emotional instability after being emotionally / socially abandoned by her partner during a period of extreme stress.
- Plies her with drugs and alcohol.
- Creepily tells her to relax all the time. Chill out. Get comfortable. You could cut and paste every scene with him into a movie about a date rapist and all you'd have to change is the music.
- Blames her for the family hating her because SJP isn't cosplaying a Bohemian.
- (Probably did have sex with her when she was blackout drunk. The film would have you believe his story. I don't. This loser absolutely has some sort of statutory rape / sexual assault arrest record. I am certain that character as a younger man said to Diane Keaton: "That bitch is lying. She wanted it." And Diane Keaton's character would have sided with her son.)
The Boyfriend:
- Instantly switches to his family's side. This is a literal anxiety nightmare for a woman going to her partner's family's house for Christmas the first time.
- Blames her for the family's initial, totally unjustified, hostile reaction.
- Drops her immediately for her younger, hotter sister. If they made later Family Stone movies we'd see him switching to younger, trashier versions every year. By TFS 6 he's getting handjobbed by a crack whore.
- Utterly, completely fails at his basic social / emotional responsibility in his "relationship" with SJP. The partner whose family is being visited is supposed to translate and socially lubricate. He did the opposite.
TK-421
5d ago
Culture War Artifact Analysis: Holiday Edition - The Family Stone
There is very little to discuss about this extremely boring movie. Diane Keaton simply Diane Keatons for a long time.
It is primarily a fable about the importance of hospitality. A pack of mannerless hicks torments their guest during an important religious holiday. They make her feel like an imposition, they treat her property disrespectfully, her partner refuses to engage in the most basic of social assistance. In retribution, the gods strike down Diane Keaton.
Blue Tribe America, especially in their youth, identify with the family. This is why their revolutions will always fail. SJP, for all her faults, is clearly portrayed as absolutely innocent. Anyone who watches this movie and feels anything but satisfaction when those jackals cry is your enemy.
Happy Holidays!
True and not inconsistent with those same men engaging in extramarital affairs. It's impossible to know the prevalence of clandestine activities. Well, was impossible. The data now exists to quantify it if we wanted to. We do not.
Sheldrake isn't divorced at the end. I wouldn't bet on the real world version ending up divorced either.
Are the old men "monopolising" the prime-age women? I'm not sure I understand the mechanism if so. They all work in the same office building. The women are - I hope - permitted some choice in their mate.
How strange that we preferentially see depictions of them choosing the older, more established executives. This archetype seems consistent across time, genres, etc. Older men must be champs at Monopoly.
More options
Context Copy link