Monday, January 12, 2004

...and another thing--

about the dec 29 post re: cold mountain--

i was wrong. apparently, there weren't a lot of black people in that region of wherever because of the particular type of farming/agricultural lifestyle structure they had up there in those cold mountains.

However--renee zellweger's character, Ruby, was apparently, in the original NOVEL, a black woman. huh. and somehow, that's transformed into white in the movie.


not that zellweger was awful--no--she was the best thing in the movie. and even watching ruby's relationship to ada was interesting: i thought it was a good way of exploring class relationships. but what a cop out since it wasn't even part of the original story!! ruby's race puts a whole other layer to her relationship with ada and the transformational power of that farm takes on another level of potency. ada doesn't merely become self-sufficient because of ruby's help; she transcends her station and gender classifications. the scenes of literacy between her and ruby take on another level of significance; the inversion of power and privilege and knowledge is more significant because of ruby's race.

but no. instead of that (which would have been a white woman's version of 'color purple'--not a bad thing in itself) we get a watered down, lame-ass love story between inman and ada. and it's not even an interesting epistolary love affair--there's only one letter of significance plus we're subjected to a totally gratuitous shot of nicole kidman's pubic hair. (who needs that?!)

and, yes, i was glad when he died--the romance should have ended with their knee-buckling kiss just before he leaves for the 'waw-uh.'

there. i spoiled it.

No comments: