Where the numbers ultimately fall will be revealed in a few weeks, but what can be said is Brie Larson's comments haven't helped the movie much, even if they may not hurt the film as much as many say they should. Much of what she has said has already been parsed, and condemned, for its racism and sexism:
"I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about A Wrinkle in Time. It wasn’t made for him! I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color..."
Most people have focused on her statement that white males have no valid opinion on films, which is understandable, but as is typical with people of Brie Larson's political persuasion there are layers of faulty premises in her reasoning, which have inadvertently been conceded as fact. Namely, there has been a concession on the point of a Wrinkle in Time itself, as if the story is only for women of color.
As it happens, I am a white man in my 40s. But once upon a time, I was ten. And when I was ten, my fourth grade teacher decided to read a book to the class with an odd green centaur-man with wings instead of arms on the cover. That book was a Wrinkle in Time. And the entire class - boys and girls - listened to it for an hour at lunch every day, discussing the book and eager to hear what the next day would bring (or as eager as fourth graders ever can be).
Several years ago, when a friend (a white male then in his 40s) lamented there was no science fiction that would appeal to a girl his daughter's age, I suggested a Wrinkle in Time offhandedly, saying it was fascinating and had a female protagonist. Several weeks later he thanked me, saying his daughter loved it and that he was reading the books with her and enjoying them himself, and it had been a positive moment of bonding between them. As a parent I've come to understand that any bond with your children becomes precious, so I was happy something I suggested turned out so well. (How often does that happen, after all?)
Such is my history with the book. No, it isn't some tale of life-changing events where I put down a gun I had aimed at my temple because I remembered Mrs. Whatsit. I am no scholar on the book or on its author, just an aquainted and casual fan. It is a book I enjoyed, and remember fondly. I probably would have seen the 2018 film in the theater (I have watched prior adaptations) but I missed it. I can't speak to how faithful or unfaithful it was to the book. But I do feel somewhat qualified to have an opinion on its quality if I do choose to see it, and I feel qualified to venture this opinion.
If I had to guess, Madeleine L'Engel, a staunch Christian who believed in universal salvation, would be uncomfortable with the idea that her book and its message wasn't intended for a universal audience, or that some people shouldn't have opinions on it. None of the quotes I have read of hers lead me to believe that she targeted teenage girls of color specifically. She didn't avoid writing to them, but her main goal was writing for children of every race. The book has messages about the importance of love and the threat of domination, the evil which strives for absolute control of thought and purpose against the freedom to express, the love of family and the ties that bind, and of a young person's place in the world as they enter adulthood. The book, as I see it, has a message intended for all people. Doesn't it then follow that all people should have a right to comment on it?
My teacher hadn't gotten the memo that white males weren't the audience for A Wrinkle In Time, nor did I when I suggested it to a friend, nor I guess did people since its publishing in 1962, nor did the makers of earlier film adaptations. Only recently - and eleven years after the author's passing- did it suddenly become only for one group of people. And Disney is involved.
Harlan Ellison in the 1990s had an excellent diatribe about his contempt for Uncle Walt's practice of putting "Walt Disney's" before classic ideas as though they were his own, such as Walt Disney's Winnie the Pooh when the stories were written by A.A. Milne, or Walt Disney's The Jungle Book when it was the universe of Rudyard Kipling, or...well, a million examples. I wonder if this sad part of his mixed legacy has reared its head again. I suspect that Brie Larson is only vaguely aware that the Disney film was based upon a novel. I would guess she either doesn't know or doesn't care about the work on which the movie was based, because the Disney version is what matters. Either that, or she read it and came away thinking it was about racial and gender wokeness, which I highly doubt.
In a way this is very sad, because somehow a timeless and very good story by a religious woman about love and family is now a failed Disney project associated with cultural marxism, to where the Brie Larsons of the world feel entitled to declare that it is not for one group of people or another and the rest of us just kind of accept that. How many people will pass by the book now that they assume it is some radical tract?
I reject the notion that skin color is a gating factor on whether or not an opinion is valid. What we all should strive for is to not spout off in ignorance, but to speak honestly and thoughtfully. When it comes to A Wrinkle in Time and who is 'qualified' to speak about it, I think the person who should be ignored is Brie Larson.
No comments:
Post a Comment