"Now these are very silly little boots, Jones. And this is a very silly little dress. And, um, these are, fuck me, absolutely enormous panties."
Daniel Cleaver
Bridget Jones's Diary
2001
Hugh Grant was shockingly brilliant in this film. I say shockingly as I wasn't expecting much and was completely pleased. Renee Zellweger steals the show, but the wit and charisma of Hugh offered audiences a look into the diary of a woman sworn to give up so much in one year to find love and embrace it.
Daniel Cleaver is Hugh's character. He is Bridget's boss. Her infatuation leads to a chance affair and the actualization that he is simply not interested in her. But, there is Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) who lusts for Bridget and she is simply convinced that she is appalled by him.
Question for today: Since when is someone seeking to find something unobtainable so blind to see what is obtainable?
Grant's character was that cocky, arrogant, superfluous role that seems to capture the predetermined appeal of the "bad boy" persona that women pawn after. Daniel Cleaver was Bridget's vice, and Mark Darcy was Bridget's admirer. Can one seek to find an admirer through a bad boy persona?
I often at times ponder what makes someone lust? What makes someone fall for the challenge of someone not reciprocating?
Life is complicated enough, yet the complexity in it all, is that people can't make decisions when faced with the right choice right in front of them. Do people like to take the hard road more often then seeking to find the easy road? I don't believe so. Most people find simplicity in taking the easy road, and complexity in the challenging plight. Yet, why the concourse? Why the pain?
Bridget Jones's Diary was a film that highlighted a woman's discorn for her image, her failure and her envision of self reflection. When ones self reflects ones self much instigating a purpose, do we find that the purpose in love is to outsmart the purpose in reason?
I found this film to expose some stereotypes that often we skirt around the issue about. This film gave that shock factor an heightened notch in Hugh Grant appeal. It was witty, charming, fun, and honest. Wouldn't it be great if one was just honest with themselves to truly define life's purpose through self reflection, and of course experimenting?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bobbot
Alpha Whiskey
Gary Gladstone
fingerlakeswanderer
Dennis Knight
Gabby Fox
Salon.com
Comments
Pam Anderson.. that is a great example.
Love and Lust should not be in the same dictionary. But, they should be in some form of education. I guess that is why they invented porn films. Hahaha.
Agree that the chase can be so exciting, that all logic fails.
Cranky Cuss.. YES, YES, YES.. age is defined as learning. I've been aging to learn that at the end of the day, what matters the most is revealing ones ideal circumstance. The sinner and the saint philosophy is dead on! You are awesome!
Linda, the book was impeccable. The film only captured pieces of the vision. Renee did gain some 20 plus pounds. She outshined Hugh.... but, he did a great job alongside her.
Rated.