The Way We Were & the Way We Should Be

There are many reasons to love The Way We Were. Number one: Robert Redford’s 1970s-era face. Number two: Barbra Streisand’s 1940s-era wardrobe (and in the name of equal opportunity, also her 1970s-era face). The 1973 film is a favorite of romantics and, among many women, is considered a must see (for reference, see, Sex & the City, season 2, episode 18, “Ex and the City”). For me, with my interest in romance and relationships and the 1960s and 1970s, the movie is a perfect representation of the shift from a happy ending-driven cultural world to a universe in which there is recognition that we may love and we may lose and the reasons for loving and losing are complicated.

thewaywewere

But the film is more than a tear-jerker and more than a representation of changed relationship norms, and I have been thinking of the movie non-stop in recent weeks (and months) because of the central tension of the film: Streisand’s K-K-K-Katie’s inability to be light, and Redford’s Hubbell’s ongoing reluctance to go heavy. Such is Katie’s desire to be with Hubbell, she joins him in leaving dark and serious New York City and embarks upon a new life on the ever-sunny and boundlessly optimistic West Coast. Integrating into the inner Hollywood circle, the pair inevitably find themselves amongst the lefties and intellectuals who’d long populated that biz. Katie, in particular, with her 1930s Popular Front background and fervent sense of social justice and the importance of free speech, becomes embroiled in this world. When she travels to Washington, DC to take part in the famed House Un-American Activities Committee interrogations of politically-minded Hollywood writers and producers and actors, she pushes Hubbell to his breaking point. He is exhausted by her talk of principles and encourages her to remember: there are principles and there are people. Katie is shocked. In a withering and syllabically-accentuated rebuttal, she responds: “People *are* their principles.”

If the world is divided into Katie’s and Hubbell’s, I am emphatically and without hesitation a Katie. True story: I was in a bar with one of my best friends; she left to go the bathroom; when she returned, I was finger wagging at the person we’d *just* met after he told me he neither paid attention to politics nor did he vote. Why had the conversation even gone there? Because I can’t not. And when I was a young Karen Dunak, I wished – man, I WISHED – I were not like this. But, baby, I was born this way. When I learn that people don’t talk about politics, I am aghast. What do they talk about? And I love books and movies and sports and other things that are not politics. But I am enmeshed in the world around us, fully conscious of its opportunities and inequalities and unable to ignore the ways in which American democracy and those we’ve elected to enact it live up to the nation’s values or fall short. Also: I am a historian; argument is my business.

And so I, like Katie Morosky, firmly believe people are their principles. And right now, and in the days and months leading up to right now, the seemingly endless time of and after the 2016 election cycle, people have revealed themselves fully. The political posturing of the Republican Party and its members, affected in an effort to shore up the President-elect, who ostensibly represents their Grand Old Party, has revealed the ideological fragility of that side of the aisle. In their willingness to wage and their determination to win a culture war, Republicans have stood by a bumbling but aggressive bully who is an affront to free speech and American democracy (and some might suggest, human decency). What’s more, the party of patriotism, as Republicans have claimed themselves for a generation at least, have shown an absolutely absence of concern for national security and, relatedly, for a clear division between public service and private gain. When I write to my representatives, I implore them to be people of principle rather than party operatives. But it seems my (and more than half the population’s) plaintive cries are falling on deaf ears. Now, more than ever, people are their principles.

I know there are those who look on, amused, to some degree, by the spectacle of American politics in 2017. There are also those who think four years isn’t so long. We’ll have the chance to get it right next time, they suggest. And four years isn’t really that long for the native born, the financially secure, the insured, the employed, the half of the population who don’t have to fear unwanted pregnancy, and all those who enjoy the various privileges a certain combination of identity markers can convey. The Hubbell’s would rather turn inward, to family and work, maybe even their local community, and allow the broader world to play out, avoiding difficult discussions or the cultivation of hard views. But this is the time and the place for hard views and the difficult discussions of those hard views. When Katie traveled to DC to support her friends at the HUAC hearings, she was in the advanced stages of pregnancy, clearly and visibly with child. Hubbell berated her for the private risks she took in being so vocal in her public support of those whose rights were being violated. Katie’s views for her time and place hold strong for ours: There are risks to speaking out, but the risks of remaining silent are far greater.

 

Advertisements

When Pop Culture is Good, It’s Really, Really Good

There are many good things about having a baby. But there are enough places on the internet to tell you what they are that I will not do so here. Instead, allow me to address a very serious drawback to raising up a child: the fact that the responsibility of raising up said child severely (SEVERELY) cuts into one’s television and film time. For a person like me, who loves (LOVES) both TV (we’re living in a golden age) and movies, the extent to which my beloved viewing time was limited cut me deeply. I’m only just now catching up on past seasons (and sort of not even really: there are about 20 unwatched Walking Deads on my DVR right now) and films released since August 2013.

So I’m a good year plus late in coming at you with my views on Obvious Child, the abortion rom-com directed by Gillian Robespierre and starring Jenny Slate, which was released way back when in 2014. But having watched this film in the same week that I watched the travesty known as the first GOP Debate of the (2015-)2016 campaign season, my thinking about this film isn’t progressively fading. I just keep thinking about it.

m_350_oc_1sht_V1.indd

I’m sure the beasts of the GOP potential presidential pool would be/are unmoved by this film, or are moved to indignation and outrage at an adult woman making choices of her own volition in a safe and responsible manner, given their obvious self-satisfaction at their collective efforts to limit women’s reproductive freedoms. Admittedly, I’m part of the choir to which this film is preaching (except that it’s not preachy AT ALL), but it struck me as such a smart, thoughtful, and human way of discussing the importance of reproductive freedom. I assume, again, a year plus later, I don’t need a spoiler alert here, but just in case: I’m about to go into some plot detail.

Faced with an unplanned pregnancy, begotten during what appears as though it will be a one-night-stand, Donna (played by Slate) visits a clinic (Planned Parenthood?), has her pregnancy confirmed and schedules an abortion in this clean, safe, legitimately medical location. She’s not happy about the pregnancy – or the abortion – but she is certain that this is the correct decision for her, at this time. That is never in doubt.

In the weeks between the scheduling of the abortion and having the procedure, she considers the implications of what she’s decided. She is surrounded by supportive friends, one of whom has had an abortion. Nellie (Gaby Hoffman) is strong and independent, and serves as our for-real feminist voice when she assures Donna she has no obligation to share news of the pregnancy with Max (Jake Lacey), the one night stander. It’s her life, and her body, and her responsibility to pay for and live with the consequences of her decision (and, again, the decision is very, very clear). She also is surrounded by supportive family, including a mother who reveals to Donna her own abortion, performed on a kitchen table in an apartment in New Jersey during the 1960s, when abortion was illegal. There is kindness and understanding all around. And an effort to bring humor to an unfortunate situation, in a kind of ‘we laugh to keep from crying’ spirit.

There is romance, too, with some of it coming during the one night stand – but much of it coming after Donna and Max have slept together. Unexpectedly, they cultivate a kind of relationship, during which Donna knows she’s pregnant and planning to have the abortion, while Max is unaware. But when Max does learn of the pregnancy and the intended abortion – during Donna’s stand-up routine (she’s a comedienne, FYI), no less – he ultimately finds her at her home on the morning of the scheduled procedure and accompanies her to the clinic, where he offers his unequivocal support. After the abortion, they spend the afternoon (longer?) together, and he sees to her comfort. There is some melancholy, but there is also the sense of possibility, the idea that life will go on.

In interviews, Robespierre has discussed her desire to create a realistic film, one that women of her generation could look to and see something of themselves. Thinking of reality v. fantasy, the obvious comparison is between this film and Knocked Up, Judd Apatow’s 2007 hit about an unplanned pregnancy, in which the word “abortion” is never spoken (“shmashmortion,” yes; “taking care of it,” yes; “abortion,” no). In many ways, Knocked Up is a very funny film, but there is an awful lot of gender stereotyping going on there (bossy, driven woman, man-child stoner, enforcer mom, fun dad, etc., etc., etc.). And it’s a stretch for us to *really* believe Alison (Katherine Heigl) would actively pursue a relationship with a very ill-advised hook-up, Ben (Seth Rogan), upon discovering her pregnancy. It would be one thing if she’d decided to keep the baby and go for it as a single mother. The push for romance here is contrived – as often happens in contemporary romantic comedies. And the premise that both Alison and Ben need to (and do!) change to make the relationship happen pushes my capacity for suspended disbelief. Obvious Child, on the other hand, is far more realistic. Twenty-something Donna, coming of age in the twenty-first century is certainly savvy enough to a) realize her own level of immaturity and ill-preparedness for raising a child; and b) have a sense of the success rate of partnerships based upon an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is the best decision for her, and she is capable of making and facing it.

Beyond thinking about Obvious Child’s relationship to other films and to the present-day extreme politics of Anti-Choicers, I was struck, too, in thinking about the film in the context of Katha Pollitt’s recent New York Times op-ed “How to Really Defend Planned Parenthood” (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/how-to-really-defend-planned-parenthood.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0). In rejecting the claims asserted by their Anti-Choice opponents, Pollitt argues, Pro-Choice supporters should be adamant about the importance of reproductive freedom, regardless of the root of the unplanned pregnancy. Rather than defending women getting abortions based on the parameters of the Anti-Choicers’ shaping of the debate, Pro-Choice activists should seize on the realities of women’s lives and the right to choice they ought to possess as human beings, full stop. She writes,

“We need to say that women have sex, have abortions, are at peace with the decision and move on with their lives. We need to say that is their right, and, moreover, it’s good for everyone that they have this right: The whole society benefits when motherhood is voluntary. When we gloss over these truths we unintentionally promote the very stigma we’re trying to combat. What, you didn’t agonize? You forgot your pill? You just didn’t want to have a baby now? You should be ashamed of yourself.

…[T]oo many pro-choice people are way too quiet. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly one in three women will have had at least one abortion by the time she reaches menopause. I suspect most of those women had someone who helped them, too — a husband or boyfriend, a friend, a parent. Where are those people? The couple who decided two kids were enough, the grad student who didn’t want to be tied for life to an ex-boyfriend, the woman barely getting by on a fast-food job? Why don’t we hear more from them?”

Part of the power of Obvious Child is that it does what Pollitt is asking in its very vocal and very unapologetic discussion of abortion, and a woman’s right to have one and move on. And it is a smart film to make direct reference to abortion’s history – when Donna’s mother discusses her own illegal abortion, to which her mother had driven her “in the family station wagon” and after which she had danced at a cousin’s Sweet Sixteen party, it is a moving moment for both mother and daughter. Even after that abortion, her life had turned out pretty great. She didn’t celebrate the memory, but she didn’t wallow in regret. In our current political climate, that’s radical. And her view is the view shared across the characters of this film. Abortions, we know, are not new; they have a long, long history. Making them harder to come by, making them illegal and unsafe, won’t make them go away. And keeping them safe and legal doesn’t make them easy, just humane.

Here and elsewhere (the classroom, the bar, my house, etc., etc., etc. ), I’ve argued against the idea of popular culture as throwaway culture. An advertisement is not just an advertisement. A song is not just a song. And a movie is never just a movie. All of these cultural forms (and countless others) are shaped by and/or in response to political, social, and economic factors of their time and place. And of course, recognizing that, and then seeing everything coming at you with that understanding can be (is) exhausting. But when you see a source, and for me, Obvious Child is that kind of source, that provides a perfect example of the power of popular culture to communicate messages that are in dire need of being communicated and to make visible experiences that are often relegated to private life, it’s also pretty incredible.