Fan Rant: No Shopping on Cinema Screens!

Yes. Plus, constantly reminding folks that they are in a tough economic time doesn't really make the tough economic time better. Au Contraire. We're already getting this from everyone else, not you too, movies!

Reply

Yep, you've hit the nail square on the head. Depression era films were full of money. I've often commented on the fact that most families in these films had hired help, even the ones depicted as "average American families." Just look at little Shirley Temple dancing her way into the hearts of America. Forever the poor little tyke with no parents, dressed in tatters, she always got the family and house full of toys in the end. Escapism is what it was all about. And hope.

While America is certainly in dire straights, things are no where near as bad as all that yet. I've seen no bread lines yet, and no one's Dad has hit the rails looking for work in Detroit or building roads in the wild Montana wilderness just so his tots can get out of their carboard box. For Hollywood and critics alike to be making comments like that is ridiculous. Escapism to happier times or to another world is what its all about. If I want reality I have CNN, 20/20 and documentaries. Get a grip Hollywood.

Reply

There is a huge difference between connecting with a movie in which the character's main attribute is to simply spend beyond her means and find joy in it and characters like Stark and Wayne. Particularly the later, who never really gave a damn about money in the first place (the first learned the hard way). So, to the average, economy worried viewer, it winds up being way more uplifting to see Wayne not really give a damn about his huge house burning down or leaving a boat with more sex than poor Albert could ever handle, much less smash his Lambo to save a man that wanted to damage him.
Mark the big difference between a hero and an air head irresponsible brat.

Reply

I agree with Julie re: the films of the Thirties.

Just rent a later film, Sullivan's Travels, where the central story is about filmmaking and how the "masses" don't want a gritty, realistic view of life -- they went to the movies to escape from all that for an hour.

Movie theatres back then were like palaces, very fancy and comfortable -- far better than the apartments my parents lived in. For 5 or 10 cents they could feel all Hollywood for an afternoon.

Reply

I think that movies are about escapism, and that the critics saying this movie is rude, is pretty pessimistic of them. Although i would never go out and pay to see Confessions of a Shopaholic, i can respect that it lets people get away from the current economic state and imagine a world where binge shopping can lead to better things than big business bailouts and people loosing their homes.

http://www.beyondrace.com

Reply

While I don't go to the movies to watch people shop, I REALLY don't go to the movies to watch my own life. I can do that at home, thanks. What I want that's "real" in movies is emotion and verisimilitude and a plot that hangs together. I don't even demand a happy ending every time, but I usually don't look for a documentary. If Hollywood wants to play to the current era, how about making a ponzie-scheme banker the baddie and running him through the grinder? That might sell.

Reply

Exactly. I watched a Fred Astaire movie this weekend on TCM (The Gay Divorcee from 1934) and I was thinking the same thing. The films of the thirties were full of tuxedos, silk dresses with feathers, fancy hotels, and luxury cars. People wanted to escape!

Everyone has piled on Confessions of a Shopaholic, a film I found amusing and liked, just as an excuse to write their own essay on the evils of our economy. It's a fun movie, not an economic treatise, folks!

Reply

I agree with Mr. R's comments that the films from the Thirties featured characters who were *already* wealthy, not characters who spend themselves into huge debt by not considering the consequences. I'm sure critics and bloggers would not come down so hard on a remake of The Great Gatsby (well, not for the same reasons) as they are on Shopaholic. I do think the release is very ill-timed but they couldn't have realized the state of the economy when it was being filmed.

Reply

I don't mean to decry escapism, as I love to be taken on an adventure in far away lands, but where is this movie escaping to? She is an irresponsible, twenty-something who passes her financial foibles and poor work ethic as quaint and cutesy. My problem is not seeing her on screen during tough economic times; it is not recognizing that she, and her real life compatriots, are what got us into this mess. Frivolous spending and endless credit created a financial bubble that has the rest of us stuck in the gummy after burst. I don't want to see her celebrated on screen.

Oh and please don't turn to CNN, 20/20 or dateline for your reality. PBS and the internet have much less biased reporting.

Reply

There's some truth to both sides of the argument. I want escapism in my movies, but Harless is right. The past eight years have been spent idolizing the rich and stupid, and we're in this mess because of a lot of their doing. The Marx brothers were always making fun of the wealthy elite as well. It'd be nice to see the working class get cast a line as the hero instead of the stupidly wealthy. And if 'Shopaholic' is getting slammed as inappropriate, I hope to God this means the plug will get pulled on 'The Hills' and its inbred counterparts. Same goes for anything Orange County related. *vom*

Reply