<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Goodness me Lyle; hope you feel better now. But a seriously great way to start a discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> english-bounces@edulists.com.au [mailto:english-bounces@edulists.com.au] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Lyle Stebbing<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 10 December 2013 2:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> VCE English Teachers' Mailing List<br><b>Subject:</b> [English] All About Eve<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>I have been bemused by the fact that several students I tutor have been </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>authoritatively told by their teachers that “All About Eve” is a “masterpiece”. I’m wondering on what criteria this judgement is based and to which canon of cinematic “masterpieces” the film belongs. Certainly it’s not included in “Sight and Sound’s” list of the best hundred films ever made. Is it, like other American films that have been on the list, given this status simply because it’s old, it’s in black and white and it’s spoken in English? I can see that the film has historical interest as a reflection of its society’s prevalent ideology regarding gender. But its “critique” of Hollywood stardom, celebrity culture and competitiveness is really just a vehicle for the old argument that a career damages a woman’s femininity and natural role in life. It is specifically female careerism and competitiveness that the film targets. The central claim is this: <i> Funny business, a woman's career. The things you drop on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. There's one career all females have in common - whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted. And, in the last analysis, nothing is any good unless you can look up just before dinner or turn around in bed - and there he is. Without that, you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a - a book full of clippings, but you're not a woman. </i> How tediously reactionary is that? Margo finds “real” success when she gives up her career and marries. Those who don’t see the light but pursue roles outside marriage will be punished, the film’s assures us. I can’t see that it has many other virtues, either. The film’s celebrated “wit” is very heavy-handed; the script is weighed down by “clever’ one-liners and allusions designed to show off its “cultured” credentials but which undermine its realism. The cleverness of a middlebrow studio film with pretensions to being highbrow. And its visuals – camera work and editing - are pedestrian and dull. Rather than a film as text this is a filmed screenplay. I can see that teachers might want students to study this film as a text that so obviously embodies and endorses the cultural biases and values of its time. But to insist on it being viewed as a masterpiece with “classic” status tends to preclude real analysis and discourages students’ from critiquing it. It’s understandable that the film would be judged a classic inside Hollywood by its own self-regarding standards (and Oscars are hardly a sign of real worth) but it seems to me that some teachers encouraging students to equate cinema with the American film industry and themselves reinforcing Hollywood’s cultural domination.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>