Odd Mentality

I read Hollywood Elsewhere regularly. Sure, the guy who writes it, Jeffrey Wells, has pretty weird taste, and when it comes to politics, let's just say he's not much of a thinker. But it's a lively site that keeps you up on the latest in the movie world.

But the lack of thought can get to you sometimes. In his most recent post, Wells interviews Rachel Weisz, who has brightened more than a few weak films.

Apparently, Wells thought highly of the silly feature Entertainment Weekly did on recent political movies. Weisz (with Wells nodding in the background) sees corporations as the new, natural enemy in these post-9/11 films. Hmm. First, corporations have been convenient bad guys for quite a few years now on the silver screen. Second, in the real world, corporations are mostly a useful ways to organize businesses for a more efficient economy, not dens of psychopathic behavior. (And not all that powerful, as I noted few days ago.) Third, maybe Weisz and Wells missed this, but 9/11 was committed by vicious religious-fascist fanatics who were attacking corporations, if anything--shouldn't they be the enemy in post 9/11 films?

An interesting if weird idea at the end of the piece:

[Weisz] told me that [husband and filmmaker Darren] Aronofsky, like myself, hates the mentality behind the Jane Austen books and has said to Rachel that "you couldn't pay me" to see Pride and Prejudice. Well spoken, good man.

Now precisely what mentality behind Jane Austen's books do they find so objectionable? I guess they mean that articulate, witty and deeply observant voice--who can stand that?