by Allan Fish
(US/UK 2001 138m) DVD1/2
Awfully long repertoire
p David Levy, Robert Altman, Bob Balaban d Robert Altman w Julian Fellowes ph Andrew Dunn ed Tim Squyres m Patrick Doyle art Stephen Altman cos Jenny Beavan
Kelly MacDonald (Mary Maceachran), Clive Owen (Robert Parks), Alan Bates (Jennings), Michael Gambon (William McCordle), Kristin Scott Thomas (Sylvia McCordle), Helen Mirren (Mrs Wilson), Maggie Smith (Constance Trentham), Richard E.Grant (George), Jeremy Northam (Ivor Novello), Ryan Philippe (Henry Denton), Emily Watson (Elsie), James Wilby (Freddie Nesbitt), Eileen Atkins (Mrs Croft), Derek Jacobi (Probert), Jeremy Swift (Arthur), Bob Balaban (Maurice Weissman), Stephen Fry (Inspector Thompson), Charles Dance (Lord Raymond Stockbridge), Sophie Thompson (Dorothy), Adrian Scarborough (Barnes), Geraldine Somerville (Louisa Stockbridge), Camilla Rutherford (Isobel McCordle), Tom Hollander (Anthony Meredith), Finty Williams (Janet), Trent Ford (Jeremy Blond), Claudie Blakley (Mabel Nesbitt), Frank Thornton (Mr Burkett),
It took a trademark ensemble piece to inspire Robert Altman to his last really major film, a return to the glory days of Nashville and Short Cuts. It was more than that, of course, but it was often mistaken for something it was not. It was not, and was never meant to be, a whodunit. There is a murder. Check. Everybody is suspected. Check. Yet who did it or why is merely an ends to a means, allowing Altman and screenwriter Julian Fellowes to weave a tapestry of a film that is worthy, if not quite of placing alongside Altman’s very best, then only fractionally behind it.
The plotline likewise merely serves as a means to an end. In 1932, an American film producer is invited by Ivor Novello to a society gathering at the estate of a distant cousin of his to allow him to do research for his next project, Charlie Chan in London. Along for the ride is his Scottish valet who, it transpires, is an American actor doing research of his own while trying to add a few romantic conquests to his resume. The host William McCordle is hated by all, from relatives, prospective and past business associates, even many of the servants. When he is then murdered – poisoned and then stabbed – there are any number of suspects.
And it’s here the problems start for most people, with Stephen Fry’s bumbling detective, who seems to belong in a 1930s variation of Mr Bean, a Hulot-like – or let’s say Will Hay-like as this is the 1930s – incompetent. He’s annoying but he’s meant to be, merely another thinly veiled nudge at the upper classes, in this case an inspector having the job because of who he knows rather than what he knows. Altman’s only interested in the conflict and clash between staff and servants, and there are knowing nods in the direction not only of Upstairs, Downstairs, but Renoir’s La Règle du Jeu (both films featured celebrities at home amongst the upper classes, both featured a murder and a mass hunt). It goes further, of course, and one must bear in mind the period setting – the early thirties – and the link goes back in cinema history to Cavalcade and in historical cinema to The Private Life of Henry VIII. Not a lot changes.
Altman’s undoubtedly helped by a gem of a script by Julian Fellowes and by the effortless editing of Tim Squyres – especially in that magnificent opening sequence of guests and servants arriving. And then there’s that cast. Philippe and Balaban may seem out of place, but that’s the entire point; Grant, Jacobi and, best of all, Scarborough, relish several juicy exchanges below stairs, Watson is a magnificent worldly maid, bathing with a fag in her hand like she’s Lady Muck, and Scott-Thomas, Gambon and Northam (sublime as Novello) require new words equating to perfect. Maggie Smith may be able to do this sort of thing in her sleep, but she’s still a national treasure, while Mirren once again shines as the perfect servant with a dark secret. I leave just one to the end, Alan Bates, in his last worthy role, joyously drunk below stairs as head butler because it’s him we see finally shut the doors on our little gathering. The most civilised treat of 2001.
Think UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS.
This is obviously Altman’s most exquisite film.
I could NOT agree more. This is not only an exquiste film, but a delicious one at that. Fusing the gritty, off-the-cuff impromptu, naturalisticstyle of films like M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and SHORT CUTS (to name a few) with a gloss that’s reminiscent of Merchant/Ivory, the master director bangs one last homer outta da park. Dazzling in the sense that Altman NEVER loses track of any detail and performance, is it any wonder why this guy is vying for the position of one of the ten great American directors of the last 40 years. UPSTAIRS/DOWNSTAIRS? Or NASHVILLE meets THE REMAINS OF THE DAY? Either/Or, and with a perfect cast to die for, Altman goes out with a bang NOT a whimper. Helen Mirren, Charles Dance, Maggie Smith and, particularly Emily Watson and Alan Bates can add feathers to their caps! I loved this film.
And, we use adjectives like EXQUISITE, DELICIOUS, MAGNIFICENT to describe this film. However, one word that doesn’t come up and should is FUN. This movie makes so many turns in so many wonderful directions to put a microscope on the exchanges between these really interesting people that you find yourself acknowledging the glee in this type of film-making. Every scene, actor, character, line of witty dialogue seques into another and gives off the illusion that you are eavesdropping into the privacies of these people. Its FUN becaise you feel privvied to something you think only YOU are invited to see and here. Just thinking of this film has me grinning. I’m just waiting for Bob to come in here now and spoil my joy by relating a George Lucas anecdote to Altmans films and career.
One of the reasons this movie succeeds (as much as it does) is due, in part, to Altman working in new territory. When I think of American filmmaking, Altman is one of the first names that always springs to my mind, just as surely as Ford, Ray or Cassavetes. He’s one of the last directors whose work originates from a time preceding the effective globalization of culture through mass-media– there is something distinctly, profoundly nationalistic (in terms of growing from a unique country-of-origin, rather than anything regarding patriotism) about his work that screams “America” to me far more than anything from Capra. It’s what makes his films such articles of pride for cinephiles in the USA, even if you don’t necessarily like them– it took me years to find a way into his particular style, but even before then I respected his work as a uniquely American output.
Moreover, each of his films (or his best ones at any rate) in some way touches upon and examines what it means to be American, both for good and ill, over a myriad of perspectives and subjects. By the time of “Gosford Park” he’d more or less exhausted every possible angle by which to examine American culture– everything from war, popular music and Manifest Destiny to politics, Hollywood and suburban domesticity had already been covered in stuff like “M*A*S*H”, “Nashville”, “McCabe & Mrs. Miller”, “Tanner ’88”, “The Player” and “Short Cuts”, to name only a few. It’s why a lot of his stuff from the mid-to-late 90’s– “The Gingerbread Man”, “Kansas City” or “Dr. T and the Women”– feels rather rote, phoned in, not-quite-there. At best, they feel like variations of movies he’d already done before, settings and storylines whose potential had already been milked.
“Gosford Park” picks things up, thankfully, because Altman’s on fresh soil. His ensemble-approach and listlessly roving camera thrives in the mannered caste system of 30’s England, and if occasionally the results smack a little bit of a mere parlour game mash-up between “Upstairs, Downstairs” and “The Rules of the Game”, then the film itself is no worse for wear. What makes it all work is that suddenly we see Altman’s style through a new lens, a new set of performers, freeing it from the occasionally claustrophobic, incestuous confines of his various stateside repetoires. By finding new faces and new locales, his cinema becomes alive again in a way that is bested only by his revival of the late 80’s and early 90’s. Too bad that second wind arrived only as a foreshadowing to his eventual demise, but at least it can be said that he went out with one more great film as a recent memory, rather than a distant one.
I love Clive Owen’s clash resentment/anger in this film. I also love Kristin Scott Thomas is just about anything she’s in. Great film, Altman is a director that hasn’t shown up in many countdowns…
opps, ‘clash resentment/anger’ should be ‘class resentment/anger’, my apologies.
What? You think it’s not Kosher?
I like Owens anger about class (and his place in it) in this film. that’s said a little more plainly.
I’m guessing my little joke didn’t quite hit the mark, did it?
I thought maybe that was what you meant… but I thought my foggy type/wording might also be the problem.
I’m left scratching my head at Tony’s comment about class, that the indictment of it wasn’t clear enough. Granted it’s been years since I saw this, but I recall a monologue from Owen while laying on a bed being incredibly brilliant and on the nose. Am I mistaken? I remember being quite taken by it at the time for some reason.
The joke had nothing to do with the movie, just your momentary typo when talking about class warfare– which, by the way, I agree is one of the interesting things about the movie. Even using the whodunit genre trappings is a key move, as it brings out all the lingering attitudes of aristocratic entitlement and social differences that all the old parlour-game murder mysteries tend to coast over. Another movie that does this well, or at least attempts to in a different milieu– “Clue”. Stupid flick in comparison to Altman, I know, but good bloodstained fun.
Jamie, class resentment does not equate to class consciousness.
tomato’e’/tomato
a ripe tomato is only potentially rotten… or one tomato does not make sauce 😉
I swear I’m not just saying this to demonstrate my newly polished good faith (see below) but I do I like this point. (Then again, it’s one that could be classified as conservative so I’m not sure it proves anything on my part, lol).
If nothing else, the intense discussion of this film has made me more curious than I had been to see it.
Speaking of Altman and politics, M*A*S*H is an interesting film in his oeuvre, ideologically speaking. In its general irreverance, subversive attitude towards religion and authority, bloody view of war, and sexual hedonism it’s been classified as a “liberal” film but is it really? The unabashed sexism is only the beginning: Richard Corliss’ withering takedown makes a good read (it’s in Philip Lopate’s recent anthology).
I enjoyed that film, but always found its characters relentlessly mean-spirited and bullying.
Ok, you got me. I gotta say it. BOB-that was an amazing, lucid, and economical mini essay/commentary. Frankly, you floored me with that one as its exactly the way I feel about this director but failed to find the words. I can only say: BRAVO!
I may be on the cusp of senility, but I found the whole affair confusing. All these stuffed shirts and pompous women swooning around, and I had no idea of who’s who, nor who’s screwing who.
All in all, a pretty but tortured and rather fatuous whine about what bastards the rich and idle are. Sure there is a revenge of sorts, but as you would expect from a Yank, a zero critique of the structural inequality that still underpins the British class system.
Tony, just to clarify, do you feel that every film dealing however marginally with class resentments, racial tensions, criminal milieus should analyze & critique structural foundations of said phenomena (it IS a criticism you’ve brought up frequently, which is why I ask) or that only some films should depending upon their purpose (i.e. this presents itself as a satire so its analysis or lack thereof becomes an issue)?
Joel, fter having been labelled an “unapologetic socialist” by none other than you, why do you ask? Still the words ‘however marginally’ are a tad dishonest.
Btw, clothing your conservatism as some kind of level-headed superiority is getting rather tiresome.
Is that a yes?
I googled “Tony D’Ambra” + “unapologetic socialist” but could not come up with any results. I do recall using the term – or something like it – though I believe it was in the interest of making you seem unbound by conventional ideology, i.e. something to the effect of “even Tony D’Ambra who, unless I am mistaken, is an unapologetic socialist, does not favor government funding for film.” Not exactly like I was whacking you over the head with a tea party placard. 😉
Speaking of which…I find it interesting that you characterize my views as “conservative.” In some ways I cotton to the label, at least in traditional terms, in the sense that I am skeptical of utopianism and am sympathetic to a sensibility you describe as “level-headed” though the “superiority” I may exhibit as well is something that may creep up on my inadvertently and not something I actively seek (which is not to say I’m not susceptible to the lamentable – and, incidentally, counter-productive – notion that I’m “above” the political fray – at which point I’m inevitably seldom more enmeshed).
However, functionally speaking, the label does not quite fit. I voted for Obama, continue to support his agenda – at least the aspects that are before the public right now, and try as I might – wary as I am of marching in lockstep with any one faction, just can’t summon up one iota of sympathy with anything the increasingly hardline right is shouting about. I don’t share their convenient agnosticism (to put it mildly) on global warming, their absolutist antipathy to any government action in the face of crisis, their bad-faith assumptions about what’s “really” on liberals’ agendas despite their “innocuous” public policies, and finally, most importantly, in the current context I adamently oppose the idea that government can do nothing to rectify the health insurance quagmire (indeed, like you and others, I’m not convinced the current bill went far enough). In this light, any self-identified conservative would reject me out of hand.
This is not an academic point, either. I’ve been engaged in debates with right-wingers in various internet forums for a while now, and in most cases – even when they’re civil (there have been plenty of cases where they’re not) they casually classify me as a “liberal” despite my protests (like you, they regard my efforts to separate myself from ideology distastefully). I don’t get into those discussions on Wonders for one simple reason: as is often the case in arts forums, there are almost no conservatives to be found – those who are out there mostly keep their views quiet for whatever reason.
Hence, whenever politics come up on these boards, and I challenge someone’s assertion, it’s inevitably from the right – or, occasionally, from a different perspective on the left (which usually gets mistaken for right-wing carping, given that I’m criticizing a liberal point of view). If there’s an edge in my tone, and I’m sure there often is, it may come from feeling that this is the type of echo chamber I’m most used to – I’ve been surrounded far more often by left-wingers than right-wingers in my life, and hence when I’ve been contrarian, it’s usually been from that aspect. This may account for an unnecessary exasperated sharpness in my disputations, for which I apologize. Even here, where I consciously tried to tone it down and ask a straightforward question it came through.
But the fact is that you read my entire election series in 2008 and, aside from my tempered skepticism on Fahrenheit 9/11 (which in itself was enough to ignite a firestorm between us which eventually settled down after an intesne back-and-forth), every viewpoint I expressed fell towards the left-of-center. So I can only conclude from your characterization of me one of the following: a) you have a selective memory; b) you regard any – or several – viewpoint(s) (but by no means the majority) deviating from the left as constituting the holder of said viewpoint automatically “conservative”; c) you think I’m lying about about my non-conservative views in order to facilitate a facade of “even-handedness; or d) you’re just kind of pissed and expressed your frustration by pigeonholing me the way you feel I’ve pigeonholed you.
For what it’s worth, my characterizations of your own views have stemmed from your own self-descriptions – as a “man of the left” (or a “leftist”, I can’t remember which) – and the viewpoints you expressed in the past. Some of which I agree with, but I don’t like to let assumptions go unchallenged if I don’t share their grounds – either I should come to understand them better and perhaps accept them, or I should discover their foundations are shaky and dismiss them. Either way, it behooves me to press and prod, if it doesn’t always make the most placid discussions. But then you’ve never been one for placidity, Tony ;).
At any rate, let me rephrase, and try to do so as honestly and straightforwardly as possible:
Tony, you have lodged similar complaints against other films in the past (Taxi Driver comes to mind). Do you feel that any film which touches on class, race, or other issues should present an analysis and critique of said phenomena, or is your criticism focused on films which, in your view, begin to present such such an analysis or critique but do not follow through? I ask because, to me, Taxi Driver (for one) was a movie that did not call out for social analysis but rather concerned itself with personal psychology; but I’m not sure if you agree and hence our disagreement may not even be premised on a similar characterization of the film. As for Gosford Park, I haven’t seen it, but since Ed quite vociferously objected to your view, I thought the point worth clarifying.
Look, Tony, for whatever reason we usually go back and forth in tension, confrontation, mutual appreciation, and back again. Perhaps because you’ve been around less often, it seems like (and this is frankly due much more to me, as I often respond to your comments which were not directed at me) we’ve hit a series of sour notes over the past few months. I hope this does not have to continue to be the case. I enjoy your work, appreciate your sensibilities (particularly because they are quite different from my own; sameness gets boring), and find our disagreements – usually – invigorating.
Sorry for any residual prickliness in my demeanor, I’ll try to keep it in check – and I mean that sincerely.
Incidentally, following this exchange I took “The Political Compass” test here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I was not satisfied with the way they worded many of the questions, which I found “leading” and wished there had been more “no opinion” or “other” possibilities (for example, I didn’t even know what the “plant genetic resources” question meant, and there were some statements whose first part I agreed with, but whose second part I did not).
Anyway, I ended up marginally in the left-libertarian category with an Economic Left/Right rating of -1.75 and a Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10. Out of the five reference dots (Stalin, Hitler, Thatcher, Friedman and Gandhi) I was closest to … ahem, Gandhi. 😉
No worries Joel. Water under the bridge.
I bristled at the ‘unapologetic’ descriptor when I read it a few weeks back, but let it pass – then.
This and your repeated use of ‘utopian’ to describe those to your left pigeon-hole’s you – perhaps unfairly – to a degree. Plus the TSNY piece you wrote in Feb on Howard Zinn was right of center, and I quote (my emphasis): “As a rightward-leaning high school student (partly the contrarian in me, as most of my peers seemed to be liberals, and knee-jerk ones at that) I often found Zinn’s work irritating.”
As for my values, they inform to varying degrees everything I say or do. So the yes answer is yes 🙂
Yes, I can see how that might lead to confusion. I self-identified as a conservative in high school (in retrospect, somewhat mistakenly as my views on, among other issues, the environment and health-care were similar back then) in part for the reasons I mentioned. But I did not mention, at least in that sentence, my transition towards a more centrist position later on, spurred in large part by the launching of the Iraq War by the Bush Administration, and subsequent revelations about torture, rendition, and indefinite detention. This of course did not change my positions on pre-existing issues (though some of those positions did, on their own, shift to the left) but they did add new – and quite central – factors which alienated from the right. (As for the overall tone of the Zinn piece, I would say it was not right-of-center, but rather right-of-left – keep in mind Zinn was a proud radical not a proud mainstream liberal, and hence one can express skepticism from the right and still inhabit the center, relatively speaking anyway. But I guess that’s all debatable as the terms are slippery.)
When I express skepticism of utopianism, it is not meant to encompass the entire left nor the left exclusively – there are self-identified leftists who are largely pragmatic (and some who are mainly critical, focusing not on what could be achieved, but on what’s wrong with the status quo), and there are right-wingers who are definitely utopians. All of the current right-wing hysteria about Obama and his supposedly dangerous idealistic Marxism or what-have-you I find quite ironic, given that Bush was ten times the foolish utopian Obama was (the neoconservative invasion of Iraq – and particularly the lax administration of the postwar occupation – was among the most dangerously naive decisions in American history).
At any rate, that’s where I’m coming from on that.
As far as the question which launched this whole sub-thread, I think I see where you’re coming from on this. For one last clarification, though, do you feel that a film which is focused primarily on different concerns but touches on socio-political elements (i.e. a story about marriage which contains a servant character, or a comedy in which a character is in the military during the Vietnam War, or a dark thriller in which the detective investigates a crime occuring in an impoverished neighborhood) is flawed to the extent it does not propose a solution or a critical analysis of said elements? Or is acknowledging them, without quite commenting upon them, enough to fufill a social duty? I get the sense that the former is more your point of view, but I just want to be certain (I’d say it’s a major disagreement between us – I wouldn’t even necessarily hold the film to the second point; but again it’s an interesting disagreement – “sameness” of perspective is boring and alternate perspectives usually add to a greater appreciation).
Joel, I don’t think I deliberately focus on the socio-political. I believe the 23 reviews of mine that appeared in the past at WitD – https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/author/bazarov/ – are representative and most do not take a political stance.
This said, I do feel justified in taking a political position on Gosford Park: my issue with the film is that it let’s the class system off the hook.
I was initially somewhat puzzled by the defensive tone of this review, thinking, “really, are there people who don’t like this film?” Its artistry and its brilliance just seem so apparent. And then I get to the bottom of the comment thread and see Tony D. complaining that it’s “confusing” (oooh no, too much detail in an Altman film, sensory overload from all that dialogue) and “fatuous” (AKA “I don’t get it”). And Tony seems to be complaining simultaneously that the film “whines” about the rich but doesn’t provide a critique of class inequality — which is, of course, its essential subject, what it’s all about!
What I love about the film, though, is not its theme or its message but the artful, elegant way in which Altman explores these upstairs/downstairs characters and their tangled but separate worlds. The plots are all submerged in the dialogue, allowed to emerge organically through hints and fragments of conversation. The pivotal scene is the one where Ivor Novello plays the piano, to the profound disinterest of the nattering rich, and the awed appreciation of the servants, who gather in the halls to listen, entranced — it’s such a beautiful, sensual scene, and I love how it comments obliquely on the relationship between artist and audience, how Novello’s true audience, the one that loves his music, is the one he can’t see, hiding in the side hallways and staircases.
I am getting bad vibes. What have I done to upset Mr Ed? What if the shoe was on the other hoof?
Btw. the Novello scene is contrived romantic nonsense.
The satirical manifestations pertaining to the fragile, even comical relations between upstairs-downstairs takes the film to new territories, something just a mystery might not have achieved. Gosford Park, for me, is P.G. Wodehouse meets Agatha Christie. The movie covers such a huge array of characters that it is easy for viewers to get lost in the ensuing melee, and thus might keep one from enjoying the film to its fullest; thankfully Altman just about managed to keep the proceedings in control. The talented cast certainly was of huge help to him too.
By the way, I expected Let the Right One In far higher than the ranking of 83. It certainly remains one of the most magnificent achievements in the world of cinema in the last decade. Whoever thought of ever watching such a wonderful amalgam of coming of age tale and vampire story – revisionist vampire film to be precise.
It’s always a treat to have Maggie Smith, Helen Mirren and Emily Watson on display in the same film no less!
This is quite simply one of my favourite movies. As Dennis stated, it is just plain FUN. Maggie Smith is a pure joy, especially in the card-playing scene as Ivor Novello continues to play songs on the piano.
I remember going to see this by myself when I was about 15, surrounded by an older crowd, ready for a good British murder mystery – the type I had come to love. But as the review states, I came to realize that the murder was just something that happens in the film. The dynamics between the guests and the servants was really what made the film special. I can still pop the DVD in and enjoy their witty banter and their brooding secrets, coming across new things during each viewing. As Tony stated, there is a lot going on and being 15 upon my first viewing, I didn’t take everything in… but that’s what makes this film a joy to re-watch. There’s always something to discover. And now I can also marvel at just how well it is made, from the editing to the performances, to the writing, costumes, art-direction… Everything is seemless and beautiful. One of my favourite scenes is a short clip, showing two servants dancing to Novello’s music in the next room, hidden from the guests. It is just a simple way to show the differences and similarities between the two classes at the manor. The servants are enjoying the music – even more so than the guests – yet they have to hide their pleasure from the powers that be, including the head butler. It’s a world filled with secrets, where even the tiniest actions are concealed.
I tried to leave a brief comment here about Gosford Park before going off to work this morning but, confusingly, I have just discovered it appeared in a thread for another film – I’m not sure if it was me or WordPress at fault! So re-posting here.
All I said was that this is a great review and comments – I loved this film although I don’t remember it in a lot of detail now. Will have to see it again soon.
Will just add that the whole cast is wonderful – I did find Stephen Fry’s performance as the policeman a bit annoying, but am interested to hear Allan argue that this was intentional. I’m looking forward to the historical drama TV series with an upstairs/ downstairs theme which Fellowes has scripted, Downton Abbey – this is currently being filmed.
I recently wrote about Gosford Park as a post-heritage film for an essay. This is some of what I wrote:
“Echoing Cairns Craig’s argument that heritage films encourage the viewer to identify with the characters as contemporaries, Gosford Park provides a vicarious experience of life in 1932, however, the film directly criticizes the glamourous upstairs guests and family of Gosford Park, and by extension, heritage cinema, largely through a detachment from them, preferring to allow the spectator to identify with those who work downstairs. “In fact, the upper-level environs of the swells are seen only through the eyes of the downstairs staff; upstairs is never visited unless at least one of the servants is present.” This allows the viewer to participate in solving the murder which takes place upstairs, but also serves to examine the class structures of a social period which was in constant flux. Altman and Bob Balaban (co-writers of the script) chose their subject era well, as the 1930s saw the decline of the live-in domestic service hierarchy. By the time World War II had ended, the social structure depicted in Gosford Park had all but disappeared, as those who had worked in service found other employment, and the extravagance of their “betters” was greatly reduced.
Since scant attention had been paid to the experiences or significance of the servile class, the film relied on the memories of several elderly servants to recreate the domestic and working spaces pictured in the downstairs area. This great equalizing factor allowed the servants to be equal protagonists with the upstairs guests. The idea that the servants had their separate world beneath that of their masters is of some interest to modern consumers, who are no longer content to sit back and watch the comings and goings of people they have nothing in common with. An argument could be made that Gosford Park promotes the idea that class is a fantastical idea in the modern world. Sadly, although the criticisms against the inequalities of the master-servant system pictured in Gosford Park are admirable, they are ultimately flawed, as are all anti- and post-heritage appraisals on the historical past. Viewers are invited to feel a certain smugness that such tiered and unequal hierarchies no longer exist, and yet the reality is, they do—in altered forms which are implicitly understood rather than explicitly enforced. The viewer who looks back and longs to live in that world is likely worn out with pretending that she is equal to someone who makes 10 times her salary.”
[“Viewers are invited to feel a certain smugness that such tiered and unequal hierarchies no longer exist, and yet the reality is, they do—in altered forms which are implicitly understood rather than explicitly enforced. The viewer who looks back and longs to live in that world is likely worn out with pretending that she is equal to someone who makes 10 times her salary.”}
I don’t think that “viewers are invited to feel a certain smugness that such . . . hierarchies no longer exist. I suspect that this view is all in the mind of certain moviegoers.