The Accidental Fascism of You've Got Mail: What This 90's Rom-Com Is Really About
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- Learn to utilize your skills by joining Skillshare, the online learning community with 20,000 Classes! The first 500 Wisecrack fans to sign up get 2 months PREMIUM FREE ► skl.sh/wisecrack18
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Join Our Discord Chat or see the research for this video on WisecrackPLUS ► wscrk.com/YtWcPls
Check out our Podcasts ► wscrk.com/casts
Is You've Got Mail the most Orwellian rom-com? Join us as we explore the subversive nature of a movie that thought online dating would be a good thing.
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
The Philosophy of TRUE DETECTIVE ► wscrk.com/2CTcS4D
Why THE JOKER'S Mysterious ORIGINS Matter ► wscrk.com/2sXTkYa
BANDERSNATCH Vlog ► wscrk.com/2RskzUx
DONNIE DARKO: Deep or Dumb? ► wscrk.com/2CmlL6f
The Philosophy of J.R.R. Tolkein ►wscrk.com/2LQQsF2
IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA: How To NOT Suck After 13 Seasons ► wscrk.com/2SpGDk5
Store ........... wisecrackstore.com
Twitter ......... / wisecrack
Facebook .... / wisecrackedu
Written by: Alec Opperman
Hosted by: Jared Bauer
Directed by: Michael Luxemburg
Edited by: Mark Potts
Opening Animation by: Michael Sinclair (diedfamo.us)
Produced by: Emily Dunbar
© 2019 Wisecrack, Inc.
For a while now I’ve been wanting a sequel where we get to watch Fox books crumble under the weight of online books sales.
And unable to meet up with the rising demands of the hipsters and digital age, a destitute Joe Fox reaches out to Kathleen Kelly to teach him to run a small, tailored, community-orientated bookshop with attached internet cafe.
Damn I’m sold with that idea
And in the end there is gay sex with Bezos?
I bet your ass Fox Books jumped right in the online books sales, and they also lobbied for net neutrality to be killed so that they can throttled the connection to rival servers, ad they did it all with an erection.
I remember reading a fanfic with that plot. Though it's been a while so it might have been a subplot? Not sure
He's soulless and she's dead inside, what a lovely couple
Funny or scary that this was passed off as light entertainment? Welcome to mind control: 1998.
Just your average postmodern romance actually.
Its just like the romance plot of starship troopers!
I thought you were joking at first. Then I realized that the political references in this movie have always felt so weird to me, like they were clearly put there for a reason, but I didn’t know what. And, of course, it’s devastating that he irrevocably destroys the most important thing in her life before they get together, when he COULD have taken steps to save it after he realized who she was. Thank you for showing me how these two weird things fit together to reveal an underlying message.
I mean her campaign to save her store was well underway before he knew who she was....and it's not like he could have done anything anyway. I actually find it to be more realistic because of this. It's not like his dad and grandfather are going to just stop everything to save her store. Even his grandfather who loved her store says "we'll crush her." Also, it's based on The Shop Around the Corner. Nora Ephron probably should have put them on the same economic field like the original did, where they were both kind of horrible people for different reasons but when he realizes, he is just trying to make her not have such an idealized version of this guy--bring her down to earth a little. Joe could have helped her, but also the movie throughout gives hints that she kind of wishes for a different life anyway. When she asks her then-boyfriend "what do I really do?", he kind of just tells her she ALONE is fighting the big boys in consumerism. She writes Joe to tell him "So much of what I see reminds me of something I read in a book, when shouldn't it be the other way around?" meaning, she isn't really living her life. By the end, she is writing a children's book, something she has always wanted to do but didn't because of running the store.
That thumbnail says “Tom Hanks wants pictures of Spider-Man!”
Thanks now I can’t get that out of my head
He's a MENACE!!!
Hilarious
HA HA HA ... You’re serious?!
I'm reading 1984 for a class right now. I'm going to have fun bringing this video to my teacher
so you just spoiled yourself yhe ending?? congrats
@@liquidpebbles7475 the book is over fifty years old. Spoiler alert is long dead for this one. Besides I already read it in high school :D
I would be intrested to know what your teacher thinks about the movie.
Yeah, expecially when she'll tell you that 1984 is about stalinism and not fascism, despite the big brother having some nazi elements (still not exactly fascism though). Maybe she'll also tell you that Franco's politic is francoism, not the italian-like fascism, despite being close to it. This video is uninformative.
Go for it
I was torrenting some old movies so a "TOM HANKS IS WATCHING YOU" notification really freaked me out there for a second.
Cornelius lol
In Soviet Russia, Tom Hanks watches you
Hitomi Iwahana Close enough to the truth
@@claudiag.9307 Shouldn't that be: "In Soviet Russia, you watch Tom Hanks... wait..."
When I was the thumbnail saying, “Tom Hanks is Watching You,” I thought, “good.”
We're sexy and we know it, ta-na-na-na-na
"you like what you see Mr. Hanks?"
*gyrates suggestively while wearing a carved out volleyball on my head"
T.Hanks
@@MorganSea Look up Sarah Ruth Ashcraft- then see how that line plays out when you try to imagine her saying that.
@@joojoojuice holy shit i never noticed
Man... the 90’s were a weird time.
Daniel Sambar Maan nineteen ninety’s were scaaaary
No, things we're just starting then. We're deep into the stupidity now
Compared to what, today? I think i'd prefer going back to the 90's
Most people that have a negative opinion of the 90's are either old and have nostalgia for the pre-digital era or they're too young to have a relevant perspective.
The 90's were okay.
The internet was far better, before all the normies got online and wanted to try to control it.
It's not weird that i want the thumbnail as a poster right?????
Or a shirt!!!
I'd buy it.
Big Hanks is watching you
Saaaaame
@@benzur3503 Remember: Tom Hanks _was_ in a movie called BIG. Now he just needs to be a movie called BROTHER and the circle will be complete.
hey wisecrack was at the howloween party you ptiched this at. can't belive you ctually went through with it
Yes! :)
He actually did it. The absolute mad man!
Also thanks for coming to the show!
You've Got Mail 2. Tom Hanks is driven out of business by Amazon and starts an online affair with a man on Grindr who later turns out to be Jeff Bezos.
You've got male
*1935 Germany wants to know your location*
european union alredy have it woot ? Germany leads this union mmm interesting...
East German troops like to no your location
*1937 USSR already knows your location.*
I remember you've got mail. I'm pretty sure it was just made to get product placement for AOL.
It's call writer subverting their brief to send a subtle message, not the first time
And starbucks
It was originally a straight remake of _Shop Around The Corner_ just with email. The product placement was actually necessary because Universal didn't think an "old fashioned" story like that would do well in cinemas, even with the Hanks/Ryan combo people loved so much from _Sleepless in Seattle_ and the same creative mind behind it in Nora Ephron, so in order to get the film made they used heavy product placement in exchange for those companies contributing to the films budget. Funny thing is that, (if I'm remembering rightly) AOL didn't even pay for all the product placement, Starbucks paid a large sum and the "fox books" chain was originally going to be Barnes and Noble, but they decided against it at the last minute. That's why the big business that forces her shop to close is portrayed so lovingly (opening it up for this interpretation) because originally it was B and N and they were concerned about being seen negatively. They pulled out so late that they didn't have much time to rewrite it and thus you get this weird late stage capitalist love letter to greed and commerce. So several companies paid millions for their inclusion (and spent God knows how much on tie in promotions, like Starbucks had special coffees advertising the film and discounts for people who showed a used cinema ticket for the film) and yet the company that got the biggest advert, and probably did the best from its inclusion in the film didn't pay a thing.
This is possibly one of your best videos so far.
*He in his madness prays for storms, and dreams that storms will bring him peace. ×*
Damn! You nailed it. Even back in the day, the whole concept and feel of this movie creeped me the Hell out. It seemed like a subversive endorsement of bland corporate mediocrity, even more than the dozens of similar rom/com snore-fests that we're constantly bombarded with since then, this one hasn't exactly aged well. Thanks for shining some light on how Hollywood often blatantly promotes subservience to our corporate masters, the scene where Tom Hanks and his daddy gleefully celebrate the demise of their lowly, independent competition is particularly neausating, especially considering how devastating this approach has been to small businesses, not to mention how morally bankrupt this variety of capitalism can be, and how this economic Darwinism soullessly crushes any competition, without any consideration for the consequences, beyond how it might impact their brand, that is. This movie illustrates how anti-intellectualism ( through the portrayal of Greg Kinnear's beta-Male, eggheaded character, in particular) is often a recurring theme in corporate media. Keep it up, yr analysis is much appreciated!
This video made me realize how much I want coffee.
This is the craziest thing I've ever watched and I loved it.
Also, Heidegger was a Nazi.
I gotta say, this is one of your guys' best videos yet. Maybe we both watch/read too much Zizek, but it's important to critically examine the ideological underpinnings of seemingly innocuous cultural artifacts. And also to masochistically enjoy them.
whining about nazis while engulfing communist garbage is not an improvement
J. This take is bad ^
This has been J. with the much loved posting segment "Takes from the Trash Can"
@@j.2512 you're mixing ideology with political party. Every political party has a ideology, but ideologies don't all have a political party. So you can identify with communism without identifying with Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin. But you can't identify with Nazis without identifying with their actions.
@Jedem Das Seine Not that you're owed an explanation, but I'll give you one (Be aware my knowledge is rather limited and you should research this yourself - if you're interested in the topic). Communism, unlike Nazism/Fascism, has a clear and coherent theory & ideology. Fascism defining mark is that it is an incoherent political philosophy, with hallmark symptoms and underpinnings - Fascism idolizes the past, so the past of Fascism is also it's future.
Communism, just like Capitalism, because of it being an economic and political system has killed people - justly and unjustly, but not because these ideologies demanded the conflict or that those people must die. Fascism demands conflict, it is inherently destructive and violent - it's actions are a hallmark of it.
I remember watching you guys basically do this live last year and it was great 🤘🏽
We have long assumed that Big Brother would take the form of Big Government; instead it has arrived in the form of Big Business. Therefore, we didn't see it coming--and in fact we have helped to bring it about by deregulating business.
wtf did they even pay for their coffee?
Back then Starbucks didn't charge for their coffee. Kinda like a drug dealer letting someone get a free "taste"...
I'm joking of course...
I mean, sadly we really do love big brother. We all actively play the game that allows big brother to grow. In the societies we live in now its near impossible to live without big brother.
Yeah most of us can't live without Facebook and Amazon lol. They are the big brother for collecting our data.
You’re forgetting that Joe Fox has a character arc...she fell in love with the guy who changed for the better.
Yeah, I was just thinking this! Because of their contact *both* main characters change.
He also skips that Kelly has a book writing contract from the end of the movie. Arguably, forcing her book store to close led to her breaking out of her comfort zone and grow.
@@lazarusknite honestly i think this has been by far the most harmless and nice romance movie i've watched since forever. a lot of things went right here, including what you mentioned. and what went wrong isn't worth criticising because if we're going to sit and analyse every kind of social dynamic, obviously most of it will be fucked up. how is there ever to be a perfect romcom? even IRL, the perfect most conducive situation to meet someone? there isn't. this is what we get and it is what it is. and it's not half as bad as the rest of our lives and the world
i liked it before and now i do like it even more
This reads like an insane game theory episode.... I love it
Film theory!
But yeah, it is
Needs way more puns
Except good.
@@Lambda_Ovine and knows what politics are, not just treating them as aesthetics or jokes
Not enough FNAF though.
This video went places....and I LOVED those places! Please do more :D
Okay, this is officially in my top 5 favourite videos of all time. AMAZING job!!
Very clever. I have to admit, this movie is kind of a guilty pleasure for me, although part of me always wanted her to unexpectedly kill him in the park at the end, like the whole thing was a trap she set up because she secretly knew it was him.
Haha! Best ending ever.
Meg Ryan must never kill anything. However, she could perhaps cause the complete disintegration of the Fox Corporation from the inside, just by asking seemingly naive Socratic questions.
I was annoyed before by just the emotional cheating going on early in the film, but you're right. I missed the obvious comparison to a dictator. The writers definitely intended for this parallel to be there in some capacity.
Fuck, I still like the movie though. Damn good actors and their subversive onscreen chemistry. I love Big Corporate.
That aspect doesn't bother me. Both partners admitted they didn't love Meg/Tom either, and that they were interested in other people. Basically no harm, no foul.
I love you guys. I really do. This is one of the best videos that you've ever done. I've always thought it truly bizarre that a movie seeming, on the surface, as light and non-threatening as "You've Got Mail!", actually winds up containing all of these aggressively dark and oddly unconcealed themes that, regardless of beginning with the appropriately implied condemnation, still somehow manages to rapidly, disturbingly, and somewhat inexplicably swerve into an almost casually hopeless surrender to an apparently insurmountable pro-corporate monopoly message that basically amounts to,
"BARNES AND NOBLE, AND THEIR ILK, WILL CONSUME EVERYTHING THAT YOU LOVE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT YOU BELIEVE IN, UNTIL YOU HAVE NOTHING, ARE NOTHING, CAN DO NOTHING, ONLY MEEKLY KNEEL TO ISSUE YOUR COMPLETE AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. EVEN THEN, YOU WILL INEVITABLY FIND YOURSELF HELPLESSLY TRAPPED WITHIN THE INESCAPABLE CAGE; A LEATHER-BACKED PRISON, IT'S UNBENDING AND UNFORGIVING BARS COMPRISED SOLELY OF BARGAINS AND BISCOTTI AND A BLITHE PITILESSNESS WHICH BELIEVES ITSELF LOVE. MEG RYAN'S RECKLESSLY LOVESICK HEART IS IN THE CAGE, TOO. AND ALL OF HER MOM'S SEEMINGLY LOYAL AND PREVIOUSLY LONG-TERM CUSTOMERS ARE THERE, SIPPING COFFEE AND SKIMMING DISCOUNT PAPERBACKS. ALSO, HER RAPIDLY COLLAPSING LIFELONG DREAMS OF THE GENERATIONAL FAMILY BUSINESS; THEY'RE IN THERE, MELTING AND SMEARING INTO A PUDDLE OF BROKEN EXPECTATIONS AND STOLEN LEGACIES SEEPING AWAY THROUGH THE CRACKS IN THE FLOOR. ALSO, THE TATTERED REMAINS OF TOM HANKS' SOUL; THAT'S PROBABLY IN THERE, IF IT EVER EXISTED AT ALL. THEY EVEN GOT TO DAVE CHAPPELLE. THINK ABOUT THAT. WHAT HOPE COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE? NO HOPE. WHAT CHOICE? NO CHOICE. ALL THAT YOU ARE, ALL THAT YOU HAVE LEFT IS SURRENDER. RESIGN YOUR WILL IN YIELDING SUBMISSION. RELENT BEFORE THE BARNES. SUCCUMB TO THE NOBLE. THE RESTLESS CHARGE OF INDUSTRY WILL EITHER ASSIMILATE YOU INTO A PRIZE FOR ONE OF THEIR EXECUTIVES OR LEAVE YOU SOBBING PENNILESS INTO THE GUTTER.
AOL WILL NOT SAVE YOU. HELL, THEY PAID FOR ALL OF THIS.",
which really is a kind of terrifyingly fatalistic and grim message to receive from a late-90's era Meg Ryan romantic comedy. Apt? Sadly, yes. Surprisingly prescient, too, as it turns out. But goddamn, what a bleak prediction to tie your love story around. It never even occurred to me to consider the parallels to Orwell, but you're absolutely right. It's right there. Good call. I hate to admit it, but I'm pretty sure that we live inside this movie now. Actually, worse. I want to go back and warn these people that Barnes and Noble is gonna be the least of their worries. Like the errant piglet that forewarns the coming of the four hundred pound warthog stomping out of the underbrush, determined to tusk you into oblivion... everything is about to change. And not for the better.
The warthog was Amazon... in cast that wasn't clear.
Ha.
This is great. I'd love to see you guys do more videos exploring the philosophy of unexpected movies like this one. This was a treat and a nice new avenue from what you usually do (which is also good, just cool to see you exploring new territory).
I wore out my VHS tape watching this movie so much when I was in high school. You've done a great read on the movie. I loved the film back in the day but always felt something was off! Feels like this hits the nail on the head.
This is Film Theory level of movie analyzing. Take a light-hearted classic and call it Orwellian. Please do more
I've always loved this movie and I still do. But this video had me laughing my ass off as to how on point your argument was. I'll never unthink your reasoning when watching the movie, but I think I'll be able to still enjoy it. LOL
Fantastic video guys, I thought it was a stretch at first but you linked everything up perfectly.
It's been five years and I recognize no one will read this, but I'm compelled to join this analysis party 🎉
That Franco line has always stood out to me (especially during a recent trip to Spain - i could not stop thinking about Franco dating a bookstore lady!) Nora Ephron was well educated and well read. She studied journalism and was very much involved in politics. All the references to history and politics in this movie that you highlight here are clearly intentional.
But I disagree that Kathleen is "broken" or destroyed by the end of the movie. What she does become is a self-actualized grown up. The store was passed down from her mother, who's been dead for several years but is kept alive by the store and her customers. When Kathleen shuts the store for the final time, she sees a vision of her younger self dancing with her mother. This store has kept her stunted, forever trapped in her childhood. Once free of it, she doesn't become a worker bee at Fox, helping hapless shoppers find shoe books. She doesn't even come under the sway of the cutthroat Patricia Eden, who wants to turn her into a children's book editor (Patricia is clearly intent on getting her own imprint, and I'm happy for her). No, what non-broken Kathleen does is start writing a children's book. In NYC - known for being expensive and hard to crack professionally - Kathleen leans into becoming an artist, something unthinkable at rhe beginning of the movie.
Sure, Fox put her out of business. Sure, Joe is throwing red flags like he's decorating a MAGA convention. But by the end of the film, Joe has clearly grown past his father's and grandfather's stunted view of relationships, and Kathleen has come out of the shadow cast by her mother. These are two adults that can now create a future different from their past.
And if that future includes Kathleen signing her best-selling books at the spacious NYC flagship Fox store, is that so bad? A city full of children delighted by her books is not the same thing as bombing of Guernica. I'm sure Ephron's references were purposeful, but I'm also sure she had a sense of humor.
"90's Tom Hank movies" is totally a genre in of itself
Wait..Dave Chappelle was in this movie??!! Why don’t I remember this?
Lmao we were too young to be exposed to daves work I feel like
In the Bernstein Universe he wasn't. We also didn't have a Sinbad Genie movie.
@@Steven_Edwards Steven don't you'll have me down a rabbit hole again...
Vsauce, Michael here. What if I told you... Dave Chappelle wasn’t in this movie? That those clips were created just for wisecrack. *music cue*
The movie's one redeeming quality...right before he blew up, before the Chappelle Show...
This has got to be a top-ten wisecrack edition, and that is really saying something. Thank you Jared.
Wisecrack makes the best mind food videos on CZcams. Keep up the good work, guys.
I saw this a lot as a kid.
It's one of my parents favorite movies.
I'm scared now...
I watched this movie recently, knowing nothing about it prior. Something about it didn't sit right with me but I couldn't quite put my finger on so started looking around to see if it had been commented on. This video expressed my feelings about it very well!
I think this is one of the best videos you guys ever made, thanks!
you’re most contentiously brilliant video to date. bravo!!!
so what your REALLY saying, twilight is Orwellian
mind. blown.
You got mail the prequel to the circle
Lol that's good
😮
This is one of your best guys. Phenomenal work!!!!
I love yo Wisecrack lol
you always make my Saturday work shift easier :D
Many people today want to live in the Orwellian nightmare though. They think its for a good cause.
Alexander T You hear about Trump wanting to have a "national news channel"? Perfect for propaganda.
Well many countries have that, but, but ... arent the private channels full of proganda already?
Cnn and fox both present the same story with a different spin.
But you ll have to pay for this channel and let me tell you from experience its not worth the money.
@@0816M3RC well unless you believe NPR and PBS were created by Trump I don't think the story you are sitting has much truth too it.
there is a channel in my country funded by the state but the government is not allowed to interact with what is being aired on it by law
phoenixkhost when you want to compare a political party to ingsoc i think the two minutes of hate is the worst example you could use
Bravo found a way to turn Tom Hanks into a fascist dictator. I thought that was not possible.
Um, he played Walt Disney.
Thank you for telling me what I never knew I was always thinking. I love you wisecrack!❤
Wisecrack you never cease to amaze me.
And on the subject of subversion this video did such a good job arguing its point that I now like You've Got Mail where as i thought it was a weakly written romcom and two terrible people who deserve each do they can stop ruining other peoples lives. I guess wise crack is also Big Brother
*_"What you're seeing and what you're hearing is not what's happening."_* DJ Trump
Hope so!
People are quoting Trump unironically. What a time to be alive.
Future proves past
Trump is awakening the people
*DJ Trump drops the base!*
@@the_Kutonarch But his base will never drop him! Unfortunately.
The first time I saw You’ve Got Mail I was absolutely horrified, especially by the ending for this reason.
Congratulations on finally getting this video made after all these years!
One of my favorite guilty pleasures.
Mine too! I liked this, Where the Heart Is & One Fine Day. Those were my 1990s rom-com guilty pleasures. 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
But Fox Books' Oceania eventually collapses against Amazon's East Asia.
And nobody can read
Man I loved this. Do more of these please!
I love this kind of conspiracy/ subtle message videos, do more!
I guess the arguments made in this video is really convincing if you never read 1984.
I knew nothing about this film's details until now. Interesting! Perhaps the biggest surprise to me, though, is the fact that the film made the attempt to portray "not voting" as a positive thing. I am sincerely interested in how people have responded to that, in general. In my experience, no matter where a US citizen is on the partisan political spectrum, they all seem to unanimously agree that people who do not vote, regardless of context, are literally the worst.
Yeah I didn't vote in 2016 and I feel 90% of the country (United States) hates me. 😂
Pensive Scarlet that’s quite an insular argument. There are valid reasons why someone might not want to participate in the illusory performance of “democracy”, especially under a two-party system where your vote is highly unlikely to make any real difference. I wish people would try to understand that instead of jumping right to the conclusion that non-voters are selfish and/or politically apathetic.
Personally I believe in spoiling your ballot if you don’t support any of the candidates (they do take note of that shit), but I would never judge someone for deciding not to vote.
@@dissonantdreams
I agree with your perspective, as a non-voter myself.
You don't vote once you realize the philosophical futility of elections. Woody allen explained that well
Surprisingly one of your best videos!
Great analysis of You've Got Mail. I watched it as a 18 yr old, and I never realized how deep this film was and how Orwellian it was! While still remaining light hearted...
0:16
Joe versus....the volcano? God the 90s were a weird time
it's a good movie too, check it out
Its a wonderfully weird subversion of the rom-com, that dips its toes into dark comedy. In my top 20, easily.
and when they reveal the motive of the natives you'll almost die laughing
cobrakingofeart is this the movie I think it is? If so hilarious. Only saw the ending as a kid. I should watch it.
Originally fascism meant putting the well-being of the group above the rights of the individual. Fascism is authoritarian but not all authoritarian governments are fascist.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot Castro and Maduro agree with you.
I totally thought this was a video that has been uploaded on April 1st, but to my surprise it wasn't. I still see this analysis as humorous.
Now *this* is what I subscribed for!
*All Hail Jarred! All Hail Wisecrack!*
I never really liked you've got mail... thank you for helping me understand why the movie is horrifying. lol.
A movie defining a generation.
How most of the generation of the hippies became the oligharch-ass-kissing tools that is normal (though thankfully not universal) for a boomer today is something hard to comprehend.
Could you do Cloud Atlas Next! Plz and thanks!!
Yes! Please!!!
yes yess mega yes
Wow. That was just great, man. Thank you.
Finally a grand thesis! I support you guys taking more esoteric movies with more interesting ideas rather than mainstream movies with vague/non cohesive ideas
I was upset the time Meg Ryan cheated on Tom Hanks with Billy Crystal =p
So when do we vote for Tom Hanks? Has the cleansing begun yet?
Bro, this is why this channel is amazing
Great video and analysis
90s rom-coms honestly make me vomit, fascism or not.
Naum Rusomarov me too.. but I hate Rom-coms general so it’s doesn’t matter what year its come out it’s not for me.. but Her is still freaking awesome 😎
When Harry met Sally is great though. They wrote it in a way so that everyone can find something about both of them you both love and hate at the same time quite intelligently
@@IAmRedherrings I was just about to write the same, Harry and Sally is such a great movie.
6:30 And George Orwell fought against the fascists in Spain for the republican cause
One of your best analysis in a while (not that the rest is not good, just very impressed with this one)
This is good stuff. I appreciate this.
Man, I normally like your videos, but this one is missing the mark big time. Most importantly, Kathleen is not left destitute when she closes down her business. It is explicitly stated in the movie that she has substantial savings. So, she simply continues with her middle class life in an affluent neighbourhood. It is also made clear that she has excellent job prospects. Publishers would love to have her as editor because, apparently, she has flawless taste for children's literature. She also has another option, and she ends up going for that one. She chooses to become an author. In short, she never becomes existentially dependent on Joe Fox. (And, with that, most of your analysis comes tumbling down.)
Also, her character arc is emphatically not about learning to love the corporate machine that trampled her under. The movie is actually a loose Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Two people meet but are brought into conflict by class difference and unfavourable circumstances. However, they have to learn to see beyond that conflict because they would both become better persons together. Deep down, they are both nice people who fit nicely together (as their anonymous online conversations show). At the end, when Kathleen says that she wanted Joe Fox to be her online conversational partner, it feels appropriate because she has learnt to see the engaging person behind the corporate facade.
So, what is Kathleen's character arc? Kathleen needs the change in her life that meeting Joe Fox could bring about. It is high time she finds herself. She carries on with a feeble business out of a sense of duty towards her mother. She is selling overpriced books when she would be better off engaging more directly with children as author and performer. And she lives with an insufferable snob just because, in their shared social circle, they superficially look like a good match.
By the way, Joe Fox also needs Kethleen because his role as a corporate executive leaves too little room for displaying his true character: a man with warmth and wit. (Early on, we only see his potential in his online persona and the way he engages with the children in his family.) At the beginning, he is also with an ill-fitting partner: an aggressive woman steeped in corporate culture.
'Accidental fascism' in a Nora Ephron movie? Are you kidding me?
i love you
These are really good points!
I just watched this movie for the second time in decades last night, doing research on love stories. I can see some of where Wisecrack is coming from and think it’s content is interesting to point out, but ultimately I side with you for you very much point out the omissions in their research. I can just hear my old English teacher saying, Well then why is Pride and Prejudice reference in the movie? Why is The Godfather? This was an entertaining video, perhaps showing places where the movie could have used some more polish, but ultimately it’s sloppy incomplete analysis, that makes this video propaganda and not a balanced work. Now there’s some irony for you.
So I went to the CrackHaus Night of Horror, and this analysis of You've Got Mail was used by one of your staff members. Hmmmmmmmmm, someone must've liked this analysis
Yes, that's why he wrote this :)
What a great analysis!!!!! Congratulations.
As a child of the 90s who grew up on a diet of those 90s rom-coms. I'm going to rewatch and cry about my ruined childhood.
Ok... Enough internet for today
Wisecrack may be right in the eyes of the philosophical take of the writers' worldview of capitalism. Conflating capitalism's creative destruction and its voluntary exchange of value to the forced state of totalitarianism is erroneous and very dangerous. No one forced the customers to buy Joe's products. No one forced the girl to fall in love. Wisecrack is correct on the parallels between 1984 and You Got Mail, but the parallels' presuppositions are wrong.
OMG smoothest transition to sponsor ad ever!
I honestly think this is the best Wisecrack video ever made!
Corporatism, one of the more popular economic models advocated for by fascists and used in fascist societies, would prevent the whole store stuff from happening.
MUH FREE MARKET
don't you dare ruin my favourite movie about bookish ppl finding each other in new york throughout the seasons! i knooww tom hanks is a bit of a creep but the olden-days internet is adorable!
You mean a bookish person, Fox is not bookish.
We can. We will. And, honestly, we should.
I love this channel so much
The timing of this is awesome, considering the Tom Hanks commercial from the Super Bowl last night.
Where is the Bee Movie video you made ???
czcams.com/video/P9SZOQ7R4M4/video.html
Its blocked in my country GODDAMNIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"under the heel of big business" Call it what it is : capitalism
It seems like Wisecrack's favorite thing is to talk about the ills of capitalism without ever using the phrase "the ills of capitalism."
Fox books was just offering a better product than she was. This was NOT Orwellian because they were given a choice. They both had a choice of who they wanted to fall in love with. It's like saying a farmer choosing to plant Potatoes and water them with water instead of planting peas and watering them with Gatorade is Orwellian because the potatoes and water are more economically viable.
@@dl2839 but the product wasn't better.
There's always a @@dl2839 in any discussion who feels it's imperative to defend the status quo. I don't know why he exists, or what good he thinks he's doing. But nonetheless, here he is, right on time.
They simply used their overbearing amounts of wealth and power to force her out of the market. They didn't win because they had the better product or because they were the better salespeople. They won because they had more power
What an amazing title. I love you guys
Love that beat at the end
Wouldn't it be the accidental corporatism of You've Got Mail? Fascism is the love of the state, and people, over the individual. The love of the corporation over the individuals is not fascism.
Corporation, State, in essence what's the difference?
@@jorge6207 Purpose of it, duties within it, the incentive structures within, morality, leadership, basically everything about it.
@@antman1672 Just the suppression of individuality makes the case for me that they are the same. Or same enough for the purpose of this video.
@@antman1672 I have to sid with jorge6207. The differences between Corporatism and Fascism are mostly down to scale. Corporations by necessity must exist within the confines of a state, and so corporatism winds up being a beachhead of fascism within the confines of a non-fascist government. Therefore it is necessary for it to hide a lot of the more overt identifiers of fascism, or deal with some lack of power to implement certain aspects for which you'd need state control... however, corporatism tends to always keep an eye toward influencing, subverting, and then overtaking the government that restricts it, and therefore encourages the governments ruling over it toward fascism if it's not strong enough to resist.
Kevin Bermudez , still , don't we live in the age that coorporations have more power than governments??
That racist you can't say that!
Oh but I do. Prepare for my civil rights beam
Justin Y. This comment is proof that he doesn’t use bots to get likes
Good to see you Mr. Y
I can't tell if seeing you in comments is like meeting a celebrity, or meeting an old neighbor
REEEEEE
I wonder if I'm the only one who checks "Justin Y"'s youtube url to see if it's a bot or not every time I see his comments
Yoo good shit keep it up
The funniest part of this is thinking of a time where big retail book stores were actually a lucrative business model.
Oh, and AOL.