Why do people hate Betty Draper?

For all the talk about Mad Men - the duplicitous and daper Don/Dick, the return of a curvacous female body to our screens in the form of Joan (Christina Hendricks is a former model, might I add....still pretty unattainably stunning for an 'attainable' representation of women...!), the fashion, the nostalgia for a by-gone era - there is one conversation that irks me. Why does everyone hate Betty Draper? Don's icy, sad, beautiful caged bird of an (ex)wife. Ultimately, it is her treatment of her children that has everyone up in arms.

Betty is not always nice to her children. But why are we so hard on her about this? Being anything less than an adoring and doting mother seems abhorrent to many people - mostly women. Where is our loyalty, where is our understanding and compassion? I can empathise with Betty, and see her parenting as an inevitable product of the following:

Firstly Betty is from a wealthy middle class family, she is university educated, she has travelled the world, she has earned an independant living as a succesful model. Yet, she is supposed to be miraculously fulfilled by childrearing in the suburbs - alone, unsuported, devalued and trivialised.

Secondly, Don and the other Mad(ison Avenue Advertising) Men - are responsible for her shackles. They invented the mythology of the contented housewife, ostensibly to sell products, but also to protect their turf - to keep women at home, out of the workforce, and distracted with the attainment of a perpetually unattainable lifestyle. With womens' time, energy and brain power thus occupied - they are unable to focus on pursuits like entering, and working their way up, the workforce.

Thirdly, we are talking about 60's America. Betty is a first-wave feminist - in some ways. She is sad but doesn't quite have the insight to understand what her sadness is about. It is about the lie she was sold by her own mother. That looking good was the only important thing - then the husband, house and children all follow. But do they in themselves provide fulfillment or happiness? It turns out they do not. The husband cheats, the suburb is tedious, child rearing is relentless and thankless.

Of course, I feel bad for little Bobby and Sally, they are treated as inconveniences, they experience little warmth from their parents - but blaming, and hating, Betty for this is a bit like blaming the victim. Betty rears her children they way she was raised, and she has improved upon it. Just as her daughter will probably go on to do the same thing. Getting a divorce from her misogynist husband was a pretty gutsy and progressive step.

People just want Bets to be nicer to her kids. They say, "Yeah, but...(she could be a better parent)". My final question is: What is a better parent? There are specific instances we could pick apart of Betty's treatment of her kids, but I could pick apart nearly everyone I know's treatment of their kids (and they could of mine). Who is to say what is valid maternal love? I know people who hug and kiss, but who have no honesty or emotional intimacy with their children...

So, I don't hate Betty Draper. I love her more - she deserves more of our love and compassion - not less.

The King's Speech

So, as part of my new no-pencil, laissez-faire approach to writing, the mistakes I spotted in my last post I must leave and move on (synposis anyone?). However, perhaps a spell check wouldn't go astray ... and ditch the funny post titles. Although I did have a good one for Black Swan .... Hommus! And now you see why it's probably best for everyone if I just stick to the actual names of things.

I was wrong, it wasn't my last visit to the crying room. This time, Andrew and I took Ave to see The King's Speech. Who I am kidding, I'll probably be trying to take Ave to movies for months to come.

Synopsis
Soon-to-be King George VI (Colin Firth) is the awkward, knock-kneed, left-handed, stuttering second child of King George V. When his brother abdicates to marry a divorced American (he wot?!), Firth ascends the throne and must deliver a speech to his people concerning the imminent war with Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Opps, forgot to mention the actual story... Two middle aged blokes - one an Aussie, the other a Prince - develop a lasting friendship when the Aussie fixes the Brits crippling stutter. Geoffrey Rush stars as Lionel Logue (seriously - you couldn't make this shit up), the Aussie speech therapist.

What did you think about the movie, Em?
I'm glad you asked. I thought it was a lovely movie. A simple story that was beautifully executed via effortless acting, and easy-on-the-eye directing. Classy. Rush and Firth conveyed an engaging chemistry and believability, and they were beautifully bolstered by all the supporting players. It was an understated film, which is exactly as it needed to be.

The story was as much an insight into the particular conundrums posed by a Royal (do I need to Capitalise this? Seems to be a continuing problem for me...) life, as it was the developing relationship between the two leads - stubborn, angry and defensive against cheeky, patient and encouraging. It was particularly interesting for the context of what the Royal family has now become. This was the beginning of the media (or a new incarnation of it) and it's powerful influence on public perception.

Like The Queen, it plays more on the similarities between the Royals and the rest of us, rather than the differences. At the end of the day, we are all people - in this case, a father, brother, son, husband - negotiating familial responsibility with our professional duties. And unlike The Young Victoria this movie is actually worth watching. Emily Blunt is pretty nice looking, but I'm not sure 2 hours of her in slo-mo wearing costumes actually constitutes a movie?

Sorry, back to this movie. Can a stereotype be subtle? Certainly Rush is a straight talking, loyal, somewhat laconic sort of fellow - treating, and ribbing, Firth as an equal. While Firth is for his part stuffy, defensive and priggish - with this cold exterior melting under Rush's open warmth and honesty. Same old, same old ... but not quite. There is subtlety in their rendering of these 'types'. I put this down to the no-nonsense way the film was directed, allowing the actors to relate together within their rather defined characters, without any winks or nudges to the audience. There is a real, and easy, chemistry between the leads.

I certainly felt the burden of the monarchy - his daughters curtsying to him after his coronation as opposed to rolling on the floor hugging and kissing before bedtime (I did say it was subtle, right?!), and also knowing the context of his eldest little girl - who herself takes the throne at age 25. But do I buy into this? The whole woe is me of the Royal family - conveying them as real people with real problems. It's a little "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." ... or "you keep trying to tell us how difficult and stressful your job is, but we still don't know what you actually do (or why we should care, & why you get paid a fortune?)".

I do understand what they are trying to communicate (we're all people, as I said earlier). And I definitely understand the cult of celebrity. Does a person only exist if they can be seen or heard? Does the tree only make a sound if felled in a magazine pictorial (or in this instance, does the King only have a voice - or matter - if he can be heard on the radio?). Hmm, interesting...

Trivia
Jennifer Ehle played Myrtle Logue, the wife of Lionel. Not only does she do a great Aussie accent, but ... well ... it's Elizabeth Bennet!!! Mr Darcy and Miss Bennet (BBC TV Miniseries Pride and Prejudice) - together again! I'm a sucker for this sort of stuff. And did you know that Col and Jen (we're good mates) used to go out together?! You know, going steady. Awesome.

No Brain, I mean Strings, Attached

Synposis
Natalie and Ashton decide they'll be friends with benefits (sex partners, without the relationship part), mainly because Natalie is a high-achieving commitment phobe. She realises this is a crummy way to go through life, and to my utter amazement and shock .... they finally decide they'll actually be a couple and go out together. Truely genre-bending.

What I thought
This may be the last time I can go to the crying room at Victoria Gardens, Ave is getting a bit too old to be cuddled or breastfed to sleep, and unfortunately this was the only thing showing...

I'm not sure about Natalie Portman as a rom-com lead, even if she is playing a (believable) Doctor. She is very straight. She doesn't really 'do' emotions or exhuberance - she keeps everything in check. And even though these were traits of the character she was playing, they also seem to be her own traits. Ashton Kutcher seems to be playing himself - a slightly thick, handsome guy, with about as much charisma as a piece of cardboard. I get the feeling he thinks he's totally hot, which makes him (for me anyway) totally not...

A rom-com is always going to be predictable. But this was beyond predictable. It was boring. I think a good rom-com has to have some sort of larger than life characters - and these guys are just so tediously normal. Think Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant, Drew Barrymore - even Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey ("alright, alright, alright") though I'm loathe to admit it - these guys are all 'more', not less. It kind of doesn't work if you aren't 'over emoting'. It is a pretty fine line to balance though - go watch any JLo or Cameron Diaz movie - and you will see how over emoting can go horribly wrong.... The Wedding Planner, What Happens in Vegas.... say no more.

Cons
Trying a bit too hard with the whole 'wacky' friend routine. It's like they decided to go with all the wacky friends, instead of just committing to one good solid wack-job - like Philip Seymour Hoffman in Along Came Polly.

Zero charisma between the 'opposites attract' leads.

Pros
It was pretty awesome to see Cary Elwes (Wesley from The Princess Bride) pop up as a Doctor in the hospital where Nat works. Now he's hot.