17 ms·

Instead of the useless title "So Long, Farewell", the webpage's html has a meta <title> which better describes the author's thesis: <title>The Empty Nostalgia

by jasode 10y ago

Instead of the useless title "So Long, Farewell", the webpage's html has a meta <title> which better describes the author's thesis: <title>The Empty Nostalgia of ‘The Sound of Music’</title> My tldr: the author Kate Guadagnino describes her changing assessment of TSOM from being obsessed with it to being dismissive of it. The obsessive stage included being hooked by the songs' earworms and reading a book bio from the actress playing the oldest child. [js2 corrected] The dismissive stage is noticing that the Nazi depiction is too tame and not historically accurate of all their evils. In other words, she now sees the movie more like critics who derided it including Pauline Kael and Joan Didion. I think I've captured the essence of her essay but I didn't find it to be interesting. Perhaps other readers who upvoted the story to the front page can tell me if I missed something. To me, an analogy would be writing about not listening to Prince's song "1999" because she's come to the realize that annihilation from nuclear war is a terrible thing. She saw the photos of Hiroshima victims and was horrified by the layers of burned skin peeling off. Therefore, to write a song that has bouncy major chords with a dance beat about nuclear destruction is "empty". Even though she loved the song as a teenager, she will now bid "farewell to '1999'" and tell us all about it. Or one could write an essay about no longer visiting the Disney amusement ride, "Pirates of the Carribean" because it trivializes the real violence in the 1500s[1] of slavery and murders (including beheadings). I think the author wants to convey that switching the perspective about TSOM from the naive innocence of "songs with hooks" to a more enlightened criticism of "inaccurate Nazis" as a maturation. I disagree and think it's perfectly reasonable for people to continue watching TSOM reruns for the "doe a deer a female deer" and not care that it doesn't try to be a Ken Burns documentary film. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_the_Caribbean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_the_Caribbean

js2 10y ago
The author is upset by the Trump presidency. The film, which used to be escapist for her, no longer is. Instead, it's become more like salt in a wound. She's not going to watch it again while he's president, and instead try to make better use of her time, reading and writing, and showing up for others instead. The piece in fact, is more about the author than the film. :-) Also, the book is by Charmian Carr (Liesl). The lead actress is of course Julie Andrews. edit: I want to thank you for your tldr. I'd initially only skimmed the article, but your tldr got me to read through it in earnest and I'm glad I did.
- qwrusz 10y ago
  Agree with this. The article seems quite focused on politics and Trump. It even ends on: "Most likely I will not watch The Sound of Music again for a long time, four or maybe even eight years..." Italics mine. In addition to the politics, the author did appear to at least want to comment on art too, how art is made and consumed right now. For whatever reasons, maybe too nervous to try such a thing on the Paris Review Crew readers who know better, beyond a couple "ironically" mild suggestions on passivity and "art being good is not the same thing as art doing good", the author doesn't say much about TSOM or art in this thing. I kind of feel bad for her (assuming it's a her), she seems to still like/want keep watching this movie "in spite of herself" and the political climate notwithstanding. I guess it's all fun and games, until people you don't like get elected. VonTrapped is right.
- avn2109 10y ago
  >> "The piece in fact, is more about the author than the film" There is a whole loathsome, solipsistic genre like this. E.g. novels about wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives, written by---you guessed it---wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives. The Paris Review is just one of many participants in the proverbial plays-about-playwrights game.
  - qwrusz 10y ago
    What's so loathsome about it? I can believe there are wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives. What's the problem?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >There is a whole loathsome, solipsistic genre like this. E.g. novels about wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives, written by---you guessed it---wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives. Sounds like "The Great Gatsby". Or art in general: isn't the author supposed to write for what they know and from the point they stand, even if they are "wealthy, privileged and young"?
optimuspaul 10y ago
Agree. People don't go into The Sound of Music expecting realism, they are expecting escapism. I would go a step further and say this is like writing a review of Schindlers List and saying you don't like it because it didn't have any singing and dancing. It is what it is and it's not fair to apply a critique to it that doesn't fit what it is.
- eropple 10y ago
  You are correct in that people treat The Sound of Music as escapist media. I think there's a strong criticism to be made for media-as-escapism in pretty much any sphere, though. Escapism, especially the pervasive escapism available today, is...troubling.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Perhaps escapism in general is defensible --- people need to disconnect and recharge to maintain resistance --- but even if you value escapism, there's something to be said about rewriting relevant, recent history to provide it.
    - eropple 10y ago
      Yeah, I'll give you that. I was leaning more on the "pervasive" part.
dingaling 10y ago
It's also worth bearing in mind that the film was set in 1938, at the time of the Anschluß, and the bloodless German occupation of Salzburg in March that year was widely supported in the city. In fact, people turned-out to cheer... and did so again when Mr Hitler came to visit them the next month. At that point most of the abhorrent things we now know to have been committed by the German regime hadn't actually happened, so I don't see how they could have been bolted onto the film. Or if they were, presumably one should also show the city being bombed by the USAAF in 1945?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Strong disagree about what Austrians could have known about Nazi Germany in 1938. Germany of 1938 could be likened to pre-famine North Korea. Mass-murdering purges of opposition (or even politically inconvenient supporters) had already been normalized, and a large system of concentration camps had been created for political undesirables. Aktion Reinhard hadn't been put into effect yet, but no educated Austrian should've had any illusions about what was in store for their country.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    At the time even the US loved Nazi Germany and Hitler.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, that's an extreme and absurd generalization. Journalists were covering the rise of Nazism as a threat to the US as early as 1932, and Hitler had been perceived as a thug since at least the Beer Hall Putsch. What's true is that mainstream sentiment in the US was more sanguine about antiSemitism in 1937 than it is now, or, for that matter, than it would be after Kristallnacht in 1938.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >and Hitler had been perceived as a thug since at least the Beer Hall Putsch. To leftist, progressive, and jewish journalists. The general public, and especially the upper classes, concerned with the thread of communism, were much more sympathetic. And much more antisemitic as you say. When Charlie Chaplin wanted to make the Great Dictator, for example, he received numerous threats and indignant messages from within the US. >What's true is that mainstream sentiment in the US was more sanguine about antiSemitism in 1937 than it is now, or, for that matter, than it would be after Kristallnacht in 1938 Well, even later. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
codazoda 10y ago
I read the first paragraph then skimmed 5 or 6 more before thinking, "I have no idea what this article is about". I expected to be reading about The Paris Review closing it's doors. I wish I could down vote on Hacker News so I could down vote the original article. I suspect they got all their employee's or maybe just the authors friends to upvote it here.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 10y ago
  These kinds of comments, where we second guess the support of an article (or of an argument in comments) as the product of shilling, are specifically disallowed on HN --- they're so toxic that the moderators have singled them out among the many pathological unproductive possible arguments as uniquely bad. Try not to write comments like this here. They're also unproductive. I read this comment and immediately upvoted the article.
dkonofalski 10y ago
Insert Orson Welles clapping .gif here I was really confused by what the author was trying to say. TSOM is a family-oriented movie and, while we can all agree that the Nazis were more terrible than the movie presents, I don't think it's fair to criticize the movie for sparing children who might enjoy the musical from the atrocities of war. You're not suddenly more wise or more mature because you recognize the naiveté of the film (meaning the author, not OP). You're just pointing out the obvious decision the filmmakers made to keep the tone of their film.
dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
> Or one could write an essay about no longer visiting the Disney amusement ride, "Pirates of the Carribean" because it trivializes the real violence in the 1500s[1] of slavery and murders (including beheadings). This is not a living memory. Nazi Germany is.
banku_brougham 10y ago
Thanks for the summary, it rekindled my interest when I quickly got bored. My own opinion: still a great film even while acknowledging this perspective. Mashing it up with The Pianist would not have made it a better film.

by jasode 10y ago

js2 10y ago

The author is upset by the Trump presidency. The film, which used to be escapist for her, no longer is. Instead, it's become more like salt in a wound. She's not going to watch it again while he's president, and instead try to make better use of her time, reading and writing, and showing up for others instead. The piece in fact, is more about the author than the film. :-) Also, the book is by Charmian Carr (Liesl). The lead actress is of course Julie Andrews. edit: I want to thank you for your tldr. I'd initially only skimmed the article, but your tldr got me to read through it in earnest and I'm glad I did.

qwrusz 10y ago
Agree with this. The article seems quite focused on politics and Trump. It even ends on: "Most likely I will not watch The Sound of Music again for a long time, four or maybe even eight years..." Italics mine. In addition to the politics, the author did appear to at least want to comment on art too, how art is made and consumed right now. For whatever reasons, maybe too nervous to try such a thing on the Paris Review Crew readers who know better, beyond a couple "ironically" mild suggestions on passivity and "art being good is not the same thing as art doing good", the author doesn't say much about TSOM or art in this thing. I kind of feel bad for her (assuming it's a her), she seems to still like/want keep watching this movie "in spite of herself" and the political climate notwithstanding. I guess it's all fun and games, until people you don't like get elected. VonTrapped is right.
avn2109 10y ago
>> "The piece in fact, is more about the author than the film" There is a whole loathsome, solipsistic genre like this. E.g. novels about wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives, written by---you guessed it---wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives. The Paris Review is just one of many participants in the proverbial plays-about-playwrights game.
- qwrusz 10y ago
  What's so loathsome about it? I can believe there are wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives. What's the problem?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >There is a whole loathsome, solipsistic genre like this. E.g. novels about wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives, written by---you guessed it---wealthy privileged young authors living in Brooklyn struggling to find meaning in their lives. Sounds like "The Great Gatsby". Or art in general: isn't the author supposed to write for what they know and from the point they stand, even if they are "wealthy, privileged and young"?

optimuspaul 10y ago

Agree. People don't go into The Sound of Music expecting realism, they are expecting escapism. I would go a step further and say this is like writing a review of Schindlers List and saying you don't like it because it didn't have any singing and dancing. It is what it is and it's not fair to apply a critique to it that doesn't fit what it is.

eropple 10y ago
You are correct in that people treat The Sound of Music as escapist media. I think there's a strong criticism to be made for media-as-escapism in pretty much any sphere, though. Escapism, especially the pervasive escapism available today, is...troubling.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Perhaps escapism in general is defensible --- people need to disconnect and recharge to maintain resistance --- but even if you value escapism, there's something to be said about rewriting relevant, recent history to provide it.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Yeah, I'll give you that. I was leaning more on the "pervasive" part.

dingaling 10y ago

It's also worth bearing in mind that the film was set in 1938, at the time of the Anschluß, and the bloodless German occupation of Salzburg in March that year was widely supported in the city. In fact, people turned-out to cheer... and did so again when Mr Hitler came to visit them the next month. At that point most of the abhorrent things we now know to have been committed by the German regime hadn't actually happened, so I don't see how they could have been bolted onto the film. Or if they were, presumably one should also show the city being bombed by the USAAF in 1945?

tptacek 10y ago
Strong disagree about what Austrians could have known about Nazi Germany in 1938. Germany of 1938 could be likened to pre-famine North Korea. Mass-murdering purges of opposition (or even politically inconvenient supporters) had already been normalized, and a large system of concentration camps had been created for political undesirables. Aktion Reinhard hadn't been put into effect yet, but no educated Austrian should've had any illusions about what was in store for their country.
- coldtea 10y ago
  At the time even the US loved Nazi Germany and Hitler.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, that's an extreme and absurd generalization. Journalists were covering the rise of Nazism as a threat to the US as early as 1932, and Hitler had been perceived as a thug since at least the Beer Hall Putsch. What's true is that mainstream sentiment in the US was more sanguine about antiSemitism in 1937 than it is now, or, for that matter, than it would be after Kristallnacht in 1938.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >and Hitler had been perceived as a thug since at least the Beer Hall Putsch. To leftist, progressive, and jewish journalists. The general public, and especially the upper classes, concerned with the thread of communism, were much more sympathetic. And much more antisemitic as you say. When Charlie Chaplin wanted to make the Great Dictator, for example, he received numerous threats and indignant messages from within the US. >What's true is that mainstream sentiment in the US was more sanguine about antiSemitism in 1937 than it is now, or, for that matter, than it would be after Kristallnacht in 1938 Well, even later. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

codazoda 10y ago

I read the first paragraph then skimmed 5 or 6 more before thinking, "I have no idea what this article is about". I expected to be reading about The Paris Review closing it's doors. I wish I could down vote on Hacker News so I could down vote the original article. I suspect they got all their employee's or maybe just the authors friends to upvote it here.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 10y ago
These kinds of comments, where we second guess the support of an article (or of an argument in comments) as the product of shilling, are specifically disallowed on HN --- they're so toxic that the moderators have singled them out among the many pathological unproductive possible arguments as uniquely bad. Try not to write comments like this here. They're also unproductive. I read this comment and immediately upvoted the article.

dkonofalski 10y ago

Insert Orson Welles clapping .gif here I was really confused by what the author was trying to say. TSOM is a family-oriented movie and, while we can all agree that the Nazis were more terrible than the movie presents, I don't think it's fair to criticize the movie for sparing children who might enjoy the musical from the atrocities of war. You're not suddenly more wise or more mature because you recognize the naiveté of the film (meaning the author, not OP). You're just pointing out the obvious decision the filmmakers made to keep the tone of their film.

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago

> Or one could write an essay about no longer visiting the Disney amusement ride, "Pirates of the Carribean" because it trivializes the real violence in the 1500s[1] of slavery and murders (including beheadings). This is not a living memory. Nazi Germany is.

banku_brougham 10y ago

Thanks for the summary, it rekindled my interest when I quickly got bored. My own opinion: still a great film even while acknowledging this perspective. Mashing it up with The Pianist would not have made it a better film.