My son-in-law Chris Wheeler posted this, and I stopped to fall in love with it. My response is as follows: " This is a very provocative statement. I suppose the word "survive" means there was a struggle; but it could also mean that the child floated above the commotion in a semi-slumber until finally re-awakening." I would like to add that I WAS A FLOATER. I wonder how any of you would respond to the wall statement?
The Academy Award winner for best picture this year went to "The Shape of Water." I did not see it yet, but I understand a mute falls in love with an amphibian. I did read a thorough synopsis of it. Sounds like a sci-fi-fantasy that touches the heart. As "Avatar" won and was in the same category of sci-fi fantasy with a message. Perhaps "Water" has a wonderful message, as well. But here is my problem: why the reach? Wy not a realistic film to appeal to those viewers who are not sci-fi fantasy people? Everyone buys into a realistic film with a message.
Reaching to the sci-fi genre may be working toward a lower denominator of our culture.
Consider: In "Moonstruck," the male lead Nicolas Cage is a baker. To elevate him, the scriptwriter makes him an opera buff. Same in "Pretty Woman" where the male romantic lead Richard Gere makes money by buying companies only to break them up and sell their parts. Again, he is an opera buff. Opera is considered a "high art" in our culture. The scriptwriter feels a NECESSITY to take the male who is employed on a lower level of the social scale and elevate him to a high status.
Why can't films appeal to our better natures all the way through. "Avatar" never replays on TV. Nor will "The Shape of Water."
New Subject: My current writing project is about "A Woman of a Certain Age." It will be either a short story in a collection, of a novella, or novel.
I'M GOING TO BE VERY BUSY for the next few weeks and will not be posting a blog until some time in April. I hope you will miss me.