I Do and I Dont PDF ✓ I Do PDF or and I Epub

I Do and I Dont ❴Reading❵ ➶ I Do and I Dont Author Jeanine Basinger – Natus-physiotherapy.co.uk From one of our leading film historians and interpreters a brilliantly researched irresistibly witty delightfully illustrated examination of “the marriage movie”; what it is or isn’t and what it From one of our and I Epub ß leading film historians and interpreters a brilliantly researched irresistibly witty delightfully illustrated examination of “the marriage movie”; what it is or isn’t and what it has to tell us about the movies—and I Do PDF or ourselvesAs long as there have been feature movies there have been marriage movies and yet Hollywood has always been cautious about how to label them—perhaps because unlike any other genre of film the marriage movie resonates directly Do and I PDF/EPUB æ with the experience of almost every adult coming to see it Here is “happily ever after”—except when things aren't happy and when “ever after” is abruptly terminated by divorce tragedy or even murder With her large hearted understanding of how movies—and audiences—work Jeanine Basinger traces the many ways Hollywood has tussled with this tricky subject explicating the relationships of countless marriages from Blondie and Dagwood to the heartrending couple in the Iranian A Separation from Tracy and Hepburn to Laurel and Hardy a marriage if ever there was one to Coach and his wife in Friday Night Lights A treasure trove of insight and sympathy illustrated with scores of wonderfully telling movie stills posters and ads.

10 thoughts on “I Do and I Dont

  1. Kaion Kaion says:

    1 Conceptually flawed Basinger seems to think marriage has to be defined by boredom and domesticity This disualifies movies such as The Thin Man because who wants to see films which portray couples that actually enjoy each other's company andor are not largely concerned with houseworkActually her criteria for marriage films is highly inconsistent and basically amounts to I recognize my marriage in this depiction The discourse largely continues on this level2 Structurally flawed What structure? Basinger tackles the films she wants to talk about when she wants to talk about them She offers little in the way of analysis or synthesis and much in the way of plot summary This might be okay if you just want to hear about classic era Hollywood films Except for the minor detail that I Do and I Don't is also 3 Factually flawed On the very first page her first error occurs; The Marriage Playground 1929 was an early sound film not a silent Of course in this early sound era a silent version would have also been distributed for movie theaters that had not undergone the costly conversion So perhaps this is mere misrepresentationHowever she fudges important details as well Adam's Rib is a late screwball in which a pair of married lawyers played by Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn face off in the courtroom in a case that becomes a firestorm for the battle of the sexes Good luck making sense of that from Basinger's description; she mistakenly says that Tracy's character is the judge in the case not the prosecutor Rating 1 star

  2. Rachel M Rachel M says:

    This book was the basis of a Cousera course I took by Jeanine Basinger I only have armchair or should I say theater chair experience in film studies but it was a blast to follow her recommendations and hunt for some of the obscure and less obscure films she named throughout the bookI was fascinated by the various tropes of the marriage films such as the We're not really married marriage movie in which the couple finds out that for some interesting reason their marriage isn't truly valid and they get to explore why they married in the first place Or the What happened? type of marriage movie which portrays a couple whose marriage is in danger and they then need to look back and figure out where they went wrong It was also interesting to see how marriage movies evolved from movies in the 30s which presented a problem or series of problems that were resolved in the end or the marriage movie of the 40s which was often concerned with women living alone on the homefront while their husbands were at war By the 70s and 80s resolving marriage problems in the film became less important than portraying the paradoxical nature of marriage and asking open ended uestions about it This book was a compelling amalgam of topics how marriage is and has been perceived and lived the evolution of American culture since films how the film industry itself has evolved and how culture has been shaped by film

  3. Dan Lalande Dan Lalande says:

    Jeanine Basinger is the least probing of contemporary film writers and the most fun with sincerest apologies to Anthony Lane Despite a solid reputation as a Film Studies prof what her books uniformly offer is a light sprinkling of cinematic history lengthy plot descriptions a nod to film marketing and a cursory look at the movies as a reflection of their audience Not for her the Freudian biographies semiotic morasses and referential criss crosses of her brethren The redemptive uality of these books is her tone; in spite of her academic label Basinger writes with the infectious infatuation of a film struck 14 year old albeit one from the mid 40's and early 50's So here we have a lightweight writer on by her own admission a lightweight subject wedlock a la Hollywood a condition the industry deemed boring from the days of Edison Needless to say this is one circumstance where Basinger's voice is alas not enough I Do and I Don't? I don't

  4. Nancy Loe Nancy Loe says:

    Perhaps I would have been disposed toward this effort of Basinger's if her introduction hadn't gone on and on about no one but her being able to cite movies about marriage We get it you're a cinema historian maven and erudite than us all Her other books do not seem to have this unappealing flaw Normally I'd be drinking in Basinger's every word but there are two problems1 Her definition of what constitutes a movie about marriage too narrow and thus movies with subtext about marital relationships are excluded and2 Glaring omissions eg The Catered Affair and I gave up mentally noting others as I readStanley Cavell's Pursuits of Happiness The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage remains the seminal book on this topic Molly Haskell's work on film and feminism has insightStill admire you Dr Basinger but less pedantry please

  5. Sarah Sarah says:

    There's a little disingenuousness ? to her early shock shock I tell you that studios and industry publications did not have a set category for marriage movies I bet they didn't have a category for baby or house buying movies either Nonetheless this was a fair look at how marriage and its companion divorce have been portrayed through the history of film with a side excursion to marriage on TV where shocker a nuanced approach is possible Frankly I think she wrote this book as an excuse to discuss the marriage of the Taylors on Friday Night Lights long live Coach and Mrs Coach

  6. Stacy Stacy says:

    I enjoyed this book and am appreciative that it brought some lesser known old movies to my attention I'll be hunting those down to see them I was puzzled that so much attention was paid to television in a book about movies especially the focus on the Friday Night Lights couple There were also some plot description errors a minor point but annoying if the reader is familiar with the movie Still it was a fun read and I would recommend it to fans of movies especially those of films of the golden age

  7. Sally Sally says:

    This was a very disappointing book Although Basinger has seen a lot of movies and has great enthusiasm for them the analysis that she applies and the conclusions that she comes to are very superficial At the start she bemoans the fact that there are hardly any movies that are billed as marriage movies She then discusses lots of movies as marriage movies but her definition keeps changing depending on the point she wants to make At times she's very concerned with the time period in which the movie is made and at other times she blithely jumps among decades if it suits her purpose better One of the most annoying aspects of her analysis is that she tends to reduce marriage movies to a need for sex done in a winking sort of way that is very reductive In the later part of the book although the topic is marriage in the movies she discusses television especially series of the 1950s and 1960s such as I Love Lucy and Ozzie and Harriet I kept reading since there were some references to films I didn't know and there were some thoughtful discussions of films such as Dodsworth and The Marrying Kind but in general I was annoyed than enlightened

  8. Linda Belmont Linda Belmont says:

    I must briefly comment that as a serious movie buff I found this to be a very large book consisting of a lot of obvious statements about marriage in the movies Think about it how many films can you think of that don't contain at least one married couple? Some are happy some are miserable etc etc In addition as an avid fan of I Love Lucy the error where the author states that Lucy burned the nose of William Holden was glaring How many other errors did the book contain? She burned her own false nose while trying to disguise herself There are many movies mentioned that I have never seen or even heard of so I had to skip those sections because they were meaningless to me Sorry but I really did not enjoy most of this book

  9. Robin Robin says:

    Basinger makes her point about marriage in films in the first 100 pages After that she discusses a dozen or so films which support her point About 200 pages in most people would get the point and unless you were taking a class about the history of marriage in movies such as an online course which not suprisingly is taught by Jeanine Basinger herself unless this book was the syllabus for that course which it is there's really no reason to read the next 200 pages I'd rather see the movies some of which are just not particularly good movies other than they support her point Okay read

  10. Kate Kate says:

    Very interesting and some intelligent comments about the portrayal of men women and sex in the movies Her comments about why so called romcoms today fail totally is right on However she misses the fact that the majority of actors paired in these so called romantic comedies have no chemistry at all on the screen They are put together by huge agencies for the most money not whether they are right for the parts Conseuently the movies tend to be boring flat and about as romantic as a three day old fish

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *