Film Review
--Be ourselves
The story took pace in 1953, when the second women's liberation gradually arisen. However, some educational institution in American, expecially Wellesley College, the most conservative college in the nation, still tenaciously performed the mission that male society endowed: to cultivate women with both moral integrity and professional competence. When Katherine Watson, a first –year teacher from Oakland State, who
always sought truth beyond tradition, got a position in the Art History department in Wellesley College, contradiction between her feminist thought and students under the influence of male chauvinism was stirring.
Most of students in Wellesley College were well educated with fine family background. They gave Katherine a caution in the first class. In their mind, the definition of success was to marry a good man and the role they born to fill was to be a good wife. In this conservative situation, Katherine tried to open her students’ mind
to do whatever they want. She encouraged her students to be themselves, to become professionals in field they loved, to improve their economic futures.
It seemed that she used her art teaching as a vehicle to put across her opinion to the young women that women were not born to become housewives and mothers. Katherine wanted to make a difference and do more things in life rather than solely adopt the roles of wives and mothers.
I can never forget she showed her students carcass by Soutine 1925, and said, “There’s also no textbook telling you what to think”. In those girls opinion, the
carcass can not be called art; “there is something aggressive about it and erotic”. I
asked myself, what is art? Can a conservative artist become a successful artist?
I can never forget, in one scene of the movie, she showed her students four newspaper ads, and asked what future scholars would think of the idea that women were born to be housewives and mothers. From her tearful eyes, I can see indignation, perplexity, and helplessness.
I can never forget she introduced Van Gogh, who refused to conform his ideals to popular taste, who refused to compromise his integrity, to her backward-looking students. When Van Gogh alived, no one thought Sunflower was a art, but after his idioctonia, the Sunflower became world-famous. Katherine was just like another Sunflower, who was resisted by standpatter. If she was not tenacious enough, she would be strangled.
There was no doubt that Katherine’s ways of teaching were contrary to school’s
directors, who believed firmly that Katherine should just teach art instead of using class to spread her point of view. The conservative headmistress warned Katherine she would lose her job if she not change herselve to fit in Wellesley. There were numerous unreasonable pacts in Katherine new contract, including “you can teach
only the syllabus as outlined by the department; all lesson plans must be submitted at the beginning of every term for approve and revision; you shall not provide counsel beyond her own subject for any student at any time; you will agreee to maintain a stricty professional relationship with all members of the faculty”.
Katherine choosed to leave finially, but her independent, creativeness, adamancy, and loving heart indeed made a difference. It was Katherine that helped students in Wellesley College shake off the yoke of traditional Feudalism. I am happy to see that
Betty marched toward her own life bravely, and no longer was in the charge of her mother.
Katherine lelt Wellesley College with smile, which was so warm that affected many people, including me.
Eight years ago, I have a good friend named Lucy, whose family ties always made her somber. Her father had sweetheart ectad and hadly went home. When he return home, there must be a drastic war. Her poor mother always grined and beared it. I had ever asked Lucy’s mother why she didn’t get a divorce. In fact, she could live a happy life independently. She had a good job with high income and had no need relying on her husband. She said she could bear any grievance as long as Lucy had a integrated famiy.
When I was young, I regarded her as a great mother for her spirt of sacrifice. However, when I grew up little by little, I realized that her sacrifice was meaningless. It is no good to have a home which exists in name only. It brought to children only agony rather than happiness. Lucy was driven to terrible depressive illness and hardly communicate with any one, expecially her mother. It was Lucy’s mother’s sacrifice
and forbearance that ruin Lucy and herself happiness.
Last winter vacation, I visit Lucy and her mother. Lucy had discontinued her studies due to her depressive illness, although had ever been a top student. Her mother, who was ever a beautiful women with professional competence, had lost job and became
more decrepit than women in her group of age.
How can a mother, who always inhibit her desire to seek happy life, bring up a mentally health child? How can a child cultivited a healthy mind educated by a unbalanced and painful mother? How can a person who not loves herself loves others? How can a women who dares not be herself becomes succeful?
In fact, the tragedy is inevitable owing to Lucy’s Mother’s traditional thought. Women
are never inferior compared with men. They are not appendage of men, although the story that Adam’s rib created Eve are still widely circulated. We have right to do what we want, to seek freedom, happiness, success. What we need is independent personality rather than blind forbearance.
I don’t mean being a housewife was bad than being a able women or famous women. I only hope that whatever choice we had made, we are always loyal to our mind, rather than other thing forces us to make decision. Like Joan, although she finally gave up enterprise and chosen family, can we say she was incorrect or unsuccessful? Everyone has right to chossen their own road. Live our lives by our own definition, and this is life.
举报
浙公网安备 33021202002483