A Night Out in the Twenties | Hacker News Reader

A Night Out in the Twenties

theparisreview.org

55 pointsThevet15 comments

If this resonates with you and you haven't already, you owe it to yourself to see Woody Allen's 2011 film Midnight in Paris.

If this resonates with you, you should re-read the following passage:

"If you weren’t glamorous and beautiful you stayed home. ... the whole idea was to have money, to be striking."

Yeah, life was better when all those damn poor people just stayed home at night.

I'm not sure if you've seen the movie but it proves your point.

// Overview, potential spolier

It's about a man who romanticises the 1920's and then gets to experience them but discovers people in the 1920's are nostalgic for the late 1800's, and that when we romanticise the past we neglect to think about all the things we have that we would lose (e.g. as mentioned in the movie, novocaine).

I have not seen the movie. And I don't understand why I'm getting downvoted into oblivion. My comment was not meant to challenge or contradict what the parent comment said.

You implied that "if" it resonates... then read "this" as if it was bad for this article to resonate with people. May not be what you meant

Well, that is sort of what I meant. If nostalgia for the "glamorous" days of the 1920s resonates with you, then you should remember that it was not all fun and games for everyone, just a select few. Apparently, that's what the parent comment meant as well. So I still don't see the problem.

FYI, my own wife occasionally expresses nostalgia for more glamorous and elegant times. She often laments that, for example, no one gets dressed up to go out any more. So my comment was in no way meant to be judgmental.

I didn't downvote you but I did think the comment had an aggressive tone to it. Probably just the sarcasm at the end. Obviously that's not what you intended but maybe others read it that way as well and jumped to downvote rather than respond.

If you didn't intend to challenge the parent, it would have worked better to post it as a separate comment on its own, not a reply quoting the above.

So far, I have been unable to open the article in question. I did downvote you, in part because I am homeless, so I see your remark as very problematic on a number of fronts, including the fact that the poorest people do not have a home to stay in. So while you scathingly dismiss the suppression of the poor, you simultaneously deny the very existence of the poorest of the poor in a manner that makes it incredibly hard to criticize or push back against.

That is being shared in hopes it helps you improve your participation here, not to give you hell about anything.

I'm 99.99% sure his last remark about poor persons was intended sarcastically.

So am I.

Then I really don't understand why you downvoted me.

(BTW, if you really think that I'm denying the existence of the poorest of the poor then you should look at this: http://graceofgodmovie.com. I'm the filmmaker.)

sarcasm + truth = downvotes

You know, some years ago, I was friends with a young transexual. The friendship ended bitterly and I want nothing to do with them ever again, but I did learn that this person experienced it as incredibly problematic that conversation routinely defaults to an assumption of "people are either male or female." I don't always get it right, but I do make an effort to use language that implicitly allows for other possibilities, such as a phrase like "whatever your gender" instead of a phrase like "regardless of whether you are male or female."

Similarly, you could have made the same sarcastic point in a way that did not essentially collude with the position you were criticizing by saying something like "Poor people should be invisible" instead of "should stay at home." If you wish to be a genuine advocate for homeless people, instead of getting on your high horse with me -- someone who has self identified as homeless -- in order to defend your ego, you could have apologized or commented that "I hadn't thought of it that way" or any number of other things that would be genuinely understanding, compassionate and respectful instead of worrying so much about your ego and self interest.

If there is some means where I can get a free copy of your movie downloaded to my android tablet, I would be happy to try to watch it some time.

Take care.

Well, OK, I'm sorry if the way I chose to phrase my comment offended you. That was certainly not my intent.

> If there is some means where I can get a free copy of your movie downloaded to my android tablet, I would be happy to try to watch it some time.

Let me see what I can do.

Article seems to neglect the fact that Ruth Gordon was a famous Broadway actress during this time, unless this is common knowledge to most New Yorkers and NYT readers.

Having expensive meals at exclusive clubs and speakeasies was probably a lot easier for her than most other folk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com