Speaking of Paris

I just returned from the movie theater having seen "Midnight in Paris," directed by Woody Allen.  I found the premise of the film to be completely delightful!  Owen Wilson's character, Gil, an America screenwriter who desires to be a novelist, is traveling with his fiancee, Inez, played by Rachel McAdams, and her parents.  They foursome is out to dinner when a pedantic windbag and his ignorant female companion, both of whom are friends with Inez, enter.  At this point in the movie, it is decided these two couples shall spend copious amounts of time together.  All these encounters and interactions give way to the audience hating Rachel McAdams' character and the other couple.  I frequently thought to myself, "Rachel McAdams's character is such a self-serving, shallow creature."  I didn't think I could ever hate Rachel McAdams, but in this film, I do!  After suffering through so much pompous spew from Paul, the pedantic windbag, Gil begs out of an evening of dancing with the group to wander through the streets of Paris.  Traipsing about for some time has proven Gil lost.  When Gil sits down to ponder how to get back to his hotel, a vintage car comes up the boulevard.  It stops in front of the stairs upon Gil is sitting, and a gentleman beckons for Gil to join them.  Because this is the movies and not reality, Gil decides to get in the car, and he is suddenly transported back to Paris in the 1920s, which in his opinion is the city's Golden Age.  During this journey to the past, Gil meets many historical figures such as Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife, Zelda, Cole Porter, Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso, and Salvador Dali, among others.  Gil also meets a woman named Adrianna, who is Picasso's mistress.  She, too, is disenchanted with her present life in the City of Lights and yearns for the Paris of the 1890s.  This disenchantment is what brings Adrianna and Gil together, and ultimately leads to Gil rediscovering himself, leaving his fiancee, and moving to Paris.  I promise that doesn't ruin the ending.  Anyone who finds themselves loving Paris, struggling with their career, or is a history buff should see this film.  I know it confirmed that I will someday live in Paris, most realistically in the distant future, but it will happen.

I happen to adore France.  I am a bit of a Francophile.  I desperately regret letting my friend, iRene (yes, that is how she spells it) talk me into taking Spanish in high school.  Though, I suppose at the time it was the better career move as I was still planning on becoming a psychologist.  However, as my career has very much steered from that original path, French would have been much more sensible.  During my last May Term at Simpson, I had the wonderful opportunity to travel through historical Burgundy with the Simpson Madgrial Singers.  I wasn't singing, but I was more than happy to join the trip as a groupie just to see Francis the First's castle, the Louvre, DaVinci's home in France, L'arc de triomphe, Giverny, Mt. Saint Micheal, Saint Chapelle, and the Eiffel Tower, among other amazing sites.  I find there's such a rich history that America can't offer.  Everything in Europe seems so interconnected and America feels very siloed. For me the Golden Age of France was during the Romantic Period when so much of the art being produced was politically charged.  As I mentioned in my first post, the idea of Le Cenacle and the salons before it are so intriguing to me.  Perhaps the thought of sitting around someone's living room, discussing the issues of the day while enjoying new compositions, poetry, and novels makes me a modern day hippie.  So be it!

I firmly believe there is a lack of discourse today.  As the middle class begins to die out and our time is as valuable as ever, we desperately search for someone else to form an opinion we halfheartedly agree with so we can have an opinion.  As a result we have groups of thought that are so drastically different with no middle ground.  We want everything to be black and white, cut and dry.  I am equally as guilty.  What would happen if we took a step back and actually thought about what's happening today and how our words and actions affect others?  What if we all formed our own opinions and could support how we feel?  Perhaps we'd be more innovative and make more intelligent decisions.  This is definitely something to ponder.


--Caro

Context Is Key

I recently read an article in Publishers Weekly about a professor who is "updating" The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventure of Tom Sawyer by replacing the now culturally offensive "nigger" with the more politically correct word "slave."  Alan Gribben is replacing the n-word in attempt to make the books more accessible and teachable in the 21st century classroom.  Gribben is working with the NEA's Big Read initiative in Alabama. 

While I commend Gribben's efforts for trying to make these masterpieces more suitable for today's classrooms, I cannot help but be ashamed for our society.  We are raising a bunch of weak-minded children who cannot tolerate even learning, let alone questioning, the social conventions of yesteryear.  I read The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn in high school.  I felt uncomfortable every time I read the word "nigger," but my American Literature teacher took the time to explain to me and the class that in the historical context of the book, the n-word wasn't wrong.  It was part of the culture, socially acceptable.  That didn't mean she was advocating our use of it now or ever.  Instead she was opening our eyes to how America was and allowing us to see into a part of history that has helped us become the country we are today.  By glossing over issues like slavery and making books politically correct, we are taking away the importance of the issues being discussed in books like Huckleberry Finn.  Keeping the word "nigger" in the books opens up the opportunity to discuss the power of words -- the abuse thereof, how words came to have the connotations they do now, ways we can combat negative uses, etc.

Several of the teachers Gribben spoke to said they felt they couldn't teach Huckleberry Finn or Tom Sawyer in the 21st century classroom.  Why?  Is it because today's children have been raised to believe that anything that doesn't fit the politically correct social mold we've created is offensive?  I find that ironic because these are the same kids who will call each other "slut," "whore," and "fag" without any thought.  I hear children and adult alike using the phrase, "That's gay." as a substitute for "That's stupid."  Why isn't anyone making a bigger deal about that?  Homosexuals have feelings too, and they do take offense when someone synonymously interchanges homosexuality with stupidity.  I used to be one of those kids who inappropriately used the word gay until my freshman year of college when a classmate, who later became one of my best friends, explained how offensive it was to him when I negatively connotated his lifestyle.  From that day on I never used gay to mean stupid.  All it took was someone pointing out how my words affect other people for me to change my ways.  I am not saying it's going to be the same way for everyone, but talking about it will help.  In 125 years are people going to change gay in every book?  By changing nigger to slave in Mark Twain's novels, we are giving the n-word more power, reinforcing its negative meanings.  If we ever want to progress as a nation we need to look at our history and question it, not rewrite it.