I finally watched Mr. Rogers and Me.
I'm not a superfan or anything, though I did watch as a kid and I admire the fact that he seemed to be the same on and off screen and fought not for his own fame, but for solid children's programming that was educational and beneficial.
It's been interesting in the wake of his death and the several documentaries that have come out to see liberals champion and quote him (citing look for the helpers and his sharing a pool with Officer Clemmons in 1969) and Republicans consequently revile him as weak or one who'd give a trophy to everyone. Yet he was in fact a Republican. And a Christian, yet he chose to live and promote kindness instead of yell about abortion and gay marriage bans and how the poor are moochers. They didn't mention political affiliation in this doc. They may go into that in Won't You Be My Neighbor.
Starting off broadly, I'd say Mr Rogers and Me as a film, I don't know if it was great but I did get to thinking about Mr. Rogers and kindness. I want to see the new one, won't you be my neighbor. This one was more about exploring this guy's connection to Mr. Rogers through the media work he does and how he hopes to be like him, which is fine. He interviews "neighbors " of Mr. Rogers, people who met him and weren't disappointed in the way we usually are when we find our beloved TV personality isn't who we thought they were because he actually is that well-intentioned. He does interview Bo Lozoff, who did some good work, wrote some books Mr. Rogers read and then was caught in sexual misconduct against the people hes was trying to help. Probably it was questionable judgement to interview a guy like this, but I don't know the timeline for the allegations and the making of the movie. Or maybe he felt obligated because Mr. Rogers quoted him and gave out his books. But there was also Susan Stamburg and Linda Ellerbee and other good ones.
It's been interesting in the wake of his death and the several documentaries that have come out to see liberals champion and quote him (citing look for the helpers and his sharing a pool with Officer Clemmons in 1969) and Republicans consequently revile him as weak or one who'd give a trophy to everyone. Yet he was in fact a Republican. And a Christian, yet he chose to live and promote kindness instead of yell about abortion and gay marriage bans and how the poor are moochers. They didn't mention political affiliation in this doc. They may go into that in Won't You Be My Neighbor.
Starting off broadly, I'd say Mr Rogers and Me as a film, I don't know if it was great but I did get to thinking about Mr. Rogers and kindness. I want to see the new one, won't you be my neighbor. This one was more about exploring this guy's connection to Mr. Rogers through the media work he does and how he hopes to be like him, which is fine. He interviews "neighbors " of Mr. Rogers, people who met him and weren't disappointed in the way we usually are when we find our beloved TV personality isn't who we thought they were because he actually is that well-intentioned. He does interview Bo Lozoff, who did some good work, wrote some books Mr. Rogers read and then was caught in sexual misconduct against the people hes was trying to help. Probably it was questionable judgement to interview a guy like this, but I don't know the timeline for the allegations and the making of the movie. Or maybe he felt obligated because Mr. Rogers quoted him and gave out his books. But there was also Susan Stamburg and Linda Ellerbee and other good ones.
The thing that brought the tears was they had him in front of the camera when he was quite a bit older, talking to people who grew up watching him, saying how he's going to tell us something he told us when we were younger: that he likes us just the way we are. I felt a little manipulated by the documentarian, but who doesn't need to hear that.
Mr. Rogers appearing before Congress was amazing. We need to be reminded of that - caring about people and progress such that we take action.
His respect for silence is familiar to me. I don't remember connecting with it as a child, but as an adult it's refreshing to hear him talk about taking time to think and about silence being something positive. As a child, I hadn't yet experienced the years of relentless jokes and general impatience with my way of being. The documentary highlighted how he'd pause on screen carefully choosing his words. The kinder descriptions of my personality have included that quirk in me as well. This feels entirely unheard of. It's usually a criticism. Everyone rushes to fill the space and entertain on air as well as just in everyday life in an endless stream of noise and chatter. People incomprehensibly describe silence as awkward or uncomfortable instead of how I experience it - as a respite or where creativity is born.
The movie wasn't sad, but it left me with a sad feeling. It feels like the last good person died with him. It just stands in stark contrast to everything: the cruelty of 45, the cruelty of the religion I grew up in - not sparing the rod, tough love, the culture being taken in by that cruelty being love instead of actual love, republican theocrats putting that cruel version of the Bible into law that hates the poor and women and people of color and uses religious freedom to trample everyone else's.
I want to have his care for people. I've always tried I think I do, but sometimes I lose hope.
I wonder how he dealt with sexism or if he just didn't because he didn't have to. He did deal with race and it was good. I wonder if there were people who were just too mean, people he couldn't or didn't want to engage with. I wonder if there were any exceptions to his all people have value and he likes them just the way they are. I can't remember if it was a clip of him or someone who knew him who said people say i like you but you need a hair cut or but you need to lose 20 lb etc - he likes people just the way they are.
If you like a cruel person or sexist person just the way they are, aren't you telling them its okay to treat you like that? Isn't it different to demand empathy and fairness than to demand they look a certain way? Or did he just believe in the good in people that much, however much or little was in a person? Was he able to focus only on that part that's sociable despite cruel politics or church or sexism? Was it his view that that good part isn't fake, but rather a glimmer of who they really might be? Did he think that that other stuff like politics and religious beliefs are the fake stuff, that it could be just some kind if a crutch for keeping feelings at bay rather than proof of their tendency to hurt and demean?
I wonder what he'd say about writing people off because of 45, the Defendant in Chief. I mean, in a way that's like the rather heartless church policy of disfellowshipping/excommunication/shunning. Adherents advertise it as love -- the desire to produce Godly sorrow in someone to make them return to the church. Shunning Trumpers is more a way to avoid pain and trauma than to teach them a lesson, though, so it isn't the same.
I guess should we all be like Mr. Rogers. Maybe? I don't know. Or could he simply afford to be that way because he was a white man and would come out on top regardless? He was bullied as a kid for being overweight, though. Interestingly, he took from that the need to be kind, not the opposite, as some might. But he obviously didn't have to deal with that all his life. . . so maybe he can afford to be cheery about it?
I don't know.
Mr. Rogers appearing before Congress was amazing. We need to be reminded of that - caring about people and progress such that we take action.
His respect for silence is familiar to me. I don't remember connecting with it as a child, but as an adult it's refreshing to hear him talk about taking time to think and about silence being something positive. As a child, I hadn't yet experienced the years of relentless jokes and general impatience with my way of being. The documentary highlighted how he'd pause on screen carefully choosing his words. The kinder descriptions of my personality have included that quirk in me as well. This feels entirely unheard of. It's usually a criticism. Everyone rushes to fill the space and entertain on air as well as just in everyday life in an endless stream of noise and chatter. People incomprehensibly describe silence as awkward or uncomfortable instead of how I experience it - as a respite or where creativity is born.
The movie wasn't sad, but it left me with a sad feeling. It feels like the last good person died with him. It just stands in stark contrast to everything: the cruelty of 45, the cruelty of the religion I grew up in - not sparing the rod, tough love, the culture being taken in by that cruelty being love instead of actual love, republican theocrats putting that cruel version of the Bible into law that hates the poor and women and people of color and uses religious freedom to trample everyone else's.
I want to have his care for people. I've always tried I think I do, but sometimes I lose hope.
I wonder how he dealt with sexism or if he just didn't because he didn't have to. He did deal with race and it was good. I wonder if there were people who were just too mean, people he couldn't or didn't want to engage with. I wonder if there were any exceptions to his all people have value and he likes them just the way they are. I can't remember if it was a clip of him or someone who knew him who said people say i like you but you need a hair cut or but you need to lose 20 lb etc - he likes people just the way they are.
If you like a cruel person or sexist person just the way they are, aren't you telling them its okay to treat you like that? Isn't it different to demand empathy and fairness than to demand they look a certain way? Or did he just believe in the good in people that much, however much or little was in a person? Was he able to focus only on that part that's sociable despite cruel politics or church or sexism? Was it his view that that good part isn't fake, but rather a glimmer of who they really might be? Did he think that that other stuff like politics and religious beliefs are the fake stuff, that it could be just some kind if a crutch for keeping feelings at bay rather than proof of their tendency to hurt and demean?
I wonder what he'd say about writing people off because of 45, the Defendant in Chief. I mean, in a way that's like the rather heartless church policy of disfellowshipping/excommunication/shunning. Adherents advertise it as love -- the desire to produce Godly sorrow in someone to make them return to the church. Shunning Trumpers is more a way to avoid pain and trauma than to teach them a lesson, though, so it isn't the same.
I guess should we all be like Mr. Rogers. Maybe? I don't know. Or could he simply afford to be that way because he was a white man and would come out on top regardless? He was bullied as a kid for being overweight, though. Interestingly, he took from that the need to be kind, not the opposite, as some might. But he obviously didn't have to deal with that all his life. . . so maybe he can afford to be cheery about it?
I don't know.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
If you want to cry again, read the part about when Diane Rehm asks Mr. Rogers what he does when he's sad... It's heartbreaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment