pinkpurpleblue-writes

[pinkpurpleblue-writes]

An Impassioned Defense of Impassioned Defenses

     Whether the speech is given on the floor of the Senate or during a business meeting, impassioned defenses of people, places, things, or ideas are fascinating to watch. What sets them apart from other types of speeches– say, wedding toasts or commencement addresses– is that they are almost always direct responses to a concept or an opposing speech. Furthermore, the impassioned defense is already coming from an underdog, one who’s opinion may not be the one prevailing one. In those instances, an impassioned defense provides a handy tool to turn the tide of public opinion. Though some may think it corny or pointless, impassioned defenses when executed correctly can be extremely effective, especially in its appeals to emotion. 

    Impassioned defenses are often common in war movies, such as Braveheart or Independence Day, acting as rallying cries before the final battle. This brings me to one of the strengths of impassioned defenses: they’re great at appealing to a sense of patriotism and pride. Citizens of nation-states usually have at least a basic knowledge of its history, and invoking famous battles their country has won or listing prestigious achievements can quickly inspire an audience to rally to the speaker’s side. This can also work on a micro level, with a president of ad-sales at a company being able to use the amount of products sold last year or rankings of the company on a national level to have a similar, though slightly diminished, effect. 

    Another strength of impassioned defenses is their versatility. They can be used in an everyday debate with friends about how Jar-Jar Binks isn’t the worst Star Wars character, but they can also be used in hearings in the House of Representatives to defend bills by talking about your mother’s dying words. Whereas other forms of speeches have limited uses- eulogies and graduation speeches come to mind- impassioned defenses have a wide range of potential topics. That means that if one is able to effectively give an impassioned defense, then it can be used frequently in everyday life to convince others that your worldview is the “correct” one. In addition, this type of speech can be useful in a wide-range of careers to convince bosses and coworkers to go with one’s proposal. This makes the impassioned defense highly useful later in life, lending itself to being learned as quickly as possible. 

    Though the impassioned defense has many benefits, some would say it has weak points as well. It can be argued that with impassioned defenses, it’s either all or nothing, heads or tails, total success or total failure. There aren’t grey spaces in delivering an impassioned defense– it either is received spectacularly or it falls flat. Now, this of course makes an impassioned defense risky. Not only are there only two outcomes, but the thing one is defending usually already has holes poked in it, so the defense must be excellent to land. I’d argue that the outcomes being so extreme make the good defenses that much more special. A good speech may already stand out in the audience's minds, but an impassioned defense almost certainly will. 

    While some may still claim that impassioned speeches are tacky (they’re not), that they’re useless (they’re the opposite), or that they’re unnecessarily dramatic (they might have a point in that one), I hope I have convinced you that the impassioned defense is an art form with varied uses that should continue to be used in perpetuity. Thank you.

(Written originally April 16, 2019)

[pinkpurpleblue-writes]

You’ve Got Mail (1998)

Summery:

You’ve Got Mail stars Nora Ephron and Tom Hanks as Kathleen Kelly, the owner of an independent children’s bookstore passed down from her mother, and Joe Fox, a member of the Fox family who runs “Fox Books,” a Barnes and Nobles-esque big box retailer. As Fox opens up a new store in New York's Upper West Side, it threatens Kathleen's independent "Shop Around The Corner." While they verbally spar and go head to head, their online personas (ShopGirl and NY152, respectively) are falling in love online through, of all thing, email and AOL instant messenger. About halfway through the movie, ShopGirl and NY152 agree to meet, Joe realizes her real identity, and, instead of revealing what he knows, starts to slowly build a cordial, then friendly, then romantic relationship with Kathleen in real life too. The "Shop Around The Corner" eventually closes down and, at the movie's climax, NY152 and ShopGirl agree to meet again. Joe expresses his feelings towards Kathleen in person on the day of the meeting and, at the meeting spot, they kiss, happy that the people they fell in love with online were the people they fell in love with offline too.

Review:

You've Got Mail is a delight nearly all the way through. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan have amazing chemistry together, and both actors are extremely emotive throughout, with expressions that show the full range of feelings that each character is going through. The late nineties setting is almost perfect for those seeking escapism nowadays, with the sweet spot in between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the "Forever Wars." The film is easily broken up into three Acts with a strong structure, divided among the seasons of Autumn, Winter, and Spring.

In between scenes of conversation and action, we see Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks emailing each other, seeing their screens and hearing the content of the emails as voice-over while the recipient reads it over. It's done exceptionally well, especially when contrasted with the problems some modern films have with showing text messaging onscreen. It's much more reminiscent of something like Victorian Era letter exchanges than anything cold and electronic.

The soundtrack is woven into the movie skillfully, with "Signed Sealed Delivered I'm Yours" and "Over the Rainbow" being particularly notable. The costume design is lovely, transporting you into the time period with Meg Ryan's clothes especially. The film touches on themes of relationships, family, and identity, but doesn't delve as far deep as it could have. It also abbreviates the "enemies to friends" part of Hanks and Ryan's relationship too much in my opinion, but the movie was already a decent length.

Politics:

The time period does come with some drawbacks, as the setting and plot allow for some peak 90s neoliberalism that is reminiscent of the first two seasons of "The West Wing," with the core politics of the film muddled at best, seemingly attempting to sidestep it at all costs. The few non-white characters (most prominently Dave Chapelle playing Joe's best friend) have little personality and less screen time, and the only non-straight characters turn out to be the fiancé of Joe Fox's father and the nanny she runs off with, both of whom get about a scene of screen time and a mention of their sexuality near the end. Fox Books brings to mind the Goliath that is Amazon, which itself helped put Borders out of business and has done the same to an immeasurable amount of independent book stores.

The relationship the film has towards capitalism itself is murky, with the most left leaning character (Meg Ryan's boyfriend-turned-ex, Frank) portrayed as a wannabe intellectual, but having Kathleen shoot barbs at Joe about status which he seems to be aware about. All in all, it reads as an attempt to not offend either side too much while still appealing to apathetic nineties twenty- and thirty-somethings who felt disenchanted with all of politics.

The film itself also has some misogynistic points, with Joe Fox's girlfriend, Patricia, being a particularly good example of a double-standard. Frank and Kathleen break up amicably after becoming more distant and are shown to be friendly after. While Frank and Patricia are show in similar lights through much of the movie, the second act has Patricia shown as emotionless and ruthless, seemingly due to her being more career-focused and driven. Some parts also haven't aged well, with a bit too much focus on appearance by the male characters and a scene where Tom Hanks refers to a woman as a "bitch."

Conclusion:

Overall, the letter is a love letter to the mid-to-late nineties, with all the good and bad that brings. I enjoyed it immensely and I still do, but it might vary depending on the level of escapism you're willing to withstand and how much you're willing to excuse due to when it was made.

Selected Quotes:

“Is it infidelity if you're involved with someone on email?”

“Keep those West Side liberal nut pseudo-intellectual bleeding heart-” “Dad...”

“Do I do it because I like it? Or because I haven't been brave?”

“Matt is my father's son, Annabel is my grandfather's daughter. We are… an American family."

“Oh the joys of rent control…”

“Do you ever feel you become the worst version of yourself? That a Pandora's box of all the secret hateful parts -- your arrogance, your spite, your condescension -- has sprung open”

"What is it with Men and the Godfather?"

"I said we were a goddamn Piazza"

"Pride and Prejudice? I bet you read that book every year, I bet you just love that.. Mr. Darcy and your sentimental heart just beats widely at the though that he and um… well, uh, whatever her name is, are truly honestly going to end up together?"

"Oh, you poor sad multimillionaire, I feel so sorry for you" and "You are nothing but a suit"

"Remember when you though Frank might be the Unabomber?"

"I am in… Vancouver"

"He ran Spain"

"Why don't we bomb Fox books"

"…and in a week it will be something really depressing, like a Baby Gap"

“...the astrologer, whose moon turned to be in someone else's house, as I recall."

"I am so sick of that. All that means is it wasn't personal to you. […] What is so wrong with being personal anyway?"