I'm doing research for my film theory paper. I'm writing about The Awful Truth, His Girl Friday, and The Philadelphia Story. As I'm supposed to be putting for a theoretical argument, she doesn't want just a reading of the movies, or of Cary Grant as an actor. Still, I'm reading some readings of the films, and I come across one called Screwball Comedies: Construction Romance, Mystifying Marriage. There are some points I agree with in the reading, and I think he's fairly thorough in the films he's looking at.

But his reading of The Philadelphia Story is so damned wrong-headed. I want to write an entire paper about how dumb his reading of that film is. That wouldn't fulfill the assignment, so I think to myself "Well, maybe I can write a response anyway..." (Note: He argues that Tracy's acceptance of Dexter at the end of the film is "sudden" and "without reason" and purely to satisfy genre demands. No, no, no, no, no. Christ, has he even seen the movie? The entire film is about the reunion of the two after he spent two years in South America and the renegotiation of their relationship. She tells him she doesn't want an alcoholic or somebody she can't respect and trust. Trust is important to her, and it's the main reason she's estranged from her father and engaged to George. He tells her he wants a partner, an equal, and he's not interested in being married to a goddess. She retaliates, but ultimately demonstrates, that she is flawed. He is surrounded by liquor through the whole movie but never touches a drop of it, demonstrating his does have the personal strength she so greatly admires. The movie isn't about her submission to the patriarchy, or his sexual conquest. How can it be about sexual conquest? He's already had her! If anything, it's about Mike's sexual conquest, and the most he gets is a metaphorical victory. The movie is about two headstrong, intelligent people who seem to be equals becoming actual equals. Hell, she even promises to be "yar," in other words, easy for him to navigate and steer, and he explicitly denies his desire for that very thing.)

Ok, that whole last paragraph was impromtu, and I didn't intend to write it. My point is, I have one paper and one afternoon of school left and I am done. But as I research, I realize, I'm never going to be done. I love to research, I love to write papers, I love to do readings. And so, paradoxically, I'm scared that I'll never be able to stop, and I'm scared that I'll never had the chance or the reason to do this again. By stopping here and not getting a PhD, I've basically relegated myself to Intro to Writing courses, if I want to continue teaching, working as adjunct faculty for crap pay. I'll never teach literature. I'll never be able to get paid to do research. If I attend conferences, I won't be affiliated with a university, and who in their right mind would attend conferences, publish papers, and do research without being paid for it? Yeah, yeah, I know there are independent researchers out there, but you know what? I'm poor. I'll continue to be poor unless I get a real job.

So, yeah, I'm scared. I just spent the last six years training to do one thing, I didn't even stick it out to the "terminal degree," I can't get a job in the one field that I actually could be qualified for, and I can't help but feel I either wasted my time or quit half way. I was supposed to have all of this figured out by now. Seriously. By the end of a freaking Masters degree, you should know what the fuck you're doing and where you are going. Or at least have a goal.

I should probably finish reading that article and go to bed now.
.

Profile

pepperlandgirl: (Default)
pepperespinoza

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags