Legally Blonde: Romantic Comedy?

Legally Blonde is a beloved movie about a young woman who is dumped by her boyfriend because he is going to Harvard Law and does not want her to drag him down. Instead of moping, the heroine Elle Woods turns her anger and works hard to get into the same school as him. Once attending Harvard Law, she is rarely taken seriously because of her looks and the way she dresses, but she ends up winning a case using her knowledge of a perm.

This movie is often regarded as a romantic comedy, because Elle ends up falling in love with a recent graduate named Emmett, however, I believe that it should not be classified as a romantic comedy. From the beginning, far greater weight is placed on her platonic relationships like those with her sorority sisters. Throughout the entire movie, her friends seem to be the only ones who do not doubt her. One of her female professors tells her to not give up, and it once again shows women supporting other women, and not her seeking out validation from her ex boyfriend or current love interest.

Elle is an unapologetically hyper feminine character who ends up succeeding in her career based off her knowledge of all things girly. I believe this movie serves to show young girls with big aspirations that their gender presentation should not hold them back or make them deserve any less respect. She remains undefinable and unable to push into stereotypes throughout the whole movie, despite many other characters attempts to, which is why I believe that this movie is a comedy, but not a romantic comedy.

Satire in The Menu

The Menu is a 2022 film directed by Mark Mylod in which a couple travels to a lavish and exclusive restaurant where the famous chef has some sinister surprises as a part of the meal. Here is the trailer:

In the movie, the guests are all extremely affluent people, like a Saveur food critic, an actor, businessmen, and investors. They all seem interested in the status that comes with dining there even more than the actual food itself. The food, however, is in itself a mockery of the absurdity of many fine dining and adventurous restaurants’ menus. One course is a “breadless bread course,” which appears to be just a series of dips. The chef and the workers are also a part of the commentary. The chef is the only one who speaks freely, and when the workers do speak, it is only in response to the chef. The militaristic appearance of the dynamic between the chef and workers is another commentary on the way kitchens are often run. This movie utilizes hyperbole to show the extremity and absurdity of these overly expensive and strictly run restaurants that are used as more of a symbol of status than an actual enjoyable experience by their patrons. The exaggerated working conditions, dishes, and extremity of the ending are all ways the writers are pointing out an actual facet of society. In the end of the movie, the chef announces that all of the customers and staff, including himself, will die at the end of the meal. Again, the extremity serves to highlight the impossible blend of art and commerce and the snobbery of the food industry. While the movie may seem to just mock the rich and the fine dining industry, it also aims to criticize society for change through the sympathy the viewers gain for the characters. The chef has been wrapped into a vicious cycle of forced creativity that has driven him to insanity where he kills himself and everyone else in the restaurant. We also feel bad for the customers that were quite annoying in the beginning. The “no way out” feeling definitely makes the audience think about how entrenched our society is in a status-seeking and money-spending cycle that doesn’t end well for anyone. I really enjoyed this movie and it really made me think.

Powerful Men and Nasty Women

I am sure that a lot of us in AP Lit felt the same way while reading King Lear. I too found myself trying to decipher the language and at times it felt as if the play wasn’t in english at all. Despite my confusion, as I gained more and more confidence while reading I felt the story starting to make sense. And as the story made sense, I recognized parts of it in our current time.

Throughout the play, insults are hurled at the female characters. Throughout my lifetime, insults have been similarly hurled at women in power.

“Down from the waist they are Centaurs,
Though women all above.
But to the girdle do the gods inherit.
Beneath is all the fiends’; there’s hell, there’s darkness,
There’s the sulphurous pit, burning, scalding,
Stench, consumption! Fie, fie, fie! Pah! pah!”


In this scene, when Lear is excusing Gloucester’s adultery, he conveys women’s sexuality as a sort of hell. Men’s view of women solely as an object of desire, obedience, and childbearing completely blocks any attempt to understand that women have the same capacity for leadership as men. In our current world, powerful men have expressed similar opinions about women in power and how they look.

“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”

-Donald Trump on Carly Fiorina

In the play and in real life, women who speak up, act, and take what they want are demonized and called “pushy”, “nasty”, and “manipulative”. This is similar to how Goneril and Regan are treated in the story, despite some of their actions being truly problematic. Cordelia, however, is respected for her virtues and beauty for being kind and not speaking up. Men are respected for the bare minimum. Lear starts the story off as a true narcissist and gains respect because he becomes slightly aware of his actions. We often glaze over the treatment and words used against women in stories because they are fiction, but the same thing is happening in 2023 that was being written about in 1605.

“my tears ricochet” -Taylor Swift

While many write off Taylor Swift as a whole due to radio overplayed hits like “Shake It Off,” age and experience has greatly contributed to her writing. I believe that the song “my tears ricochet” from her album Folklore exemplifies this. 

At first listen, this song may seem to be another emotional song about a breakup, but if you examine the lyrics closer, it is a much more complex metaphor about death, closure, and unresolved emotions. The song explains that even death doesn’t bring closure.

The song begins, “We gather here, we lineup / weepin’ in a sunlit room.” These lines immediately place the setting of the song at a funeral. The song continues, “‘cause I loved you, I swear I loved you / ‘Til my dying day.” These lines reference the common saying at weddings “til death do us part,” signifying to the listeners that the speaker and the ex were possibly married, or at least very committed to each other at one point. 

The chorus begins, “I didn’t have it in myself to go with grace.” This is a turning point in the song. This line is telling the audience that the end of their relationship was not pretty, but referencing a previous line, she still loved him “‘til her dying day.” The next line is one of my favorite lines in the song. Swift sings, “and you’re the hero flying around, saving face.” This line is quite ironic because she labels her ex as “the hero,” but also says that instead of saving lives like classic heroes, the speaker is dead and he is busy “saving face,” meaning he is only attempting to save his reputation. She continues and askes, “and if I’m dead to you, why are you at the wake?” This line is a good representation of human relationships. Even if their romantic relationship ends in chaos and hatred and being told that she was “dead to him,” he still shows up to her wake when she actually dies. This line also confirms the setting of the funeral. The chorus wraps up with “cursing my name, wishing I stayed / look at how my tears ricochet.” Despite being in an unhappy relationship, he is not happy about her death, giving the listeners a sense that the ex is searching for a resolution and closure, which is a very human thing to do. The last line, which also contains the title of the song, is an example of how death is the biggest denier of a resolution, so the ex will never achieve closure. The speaker, even dead, is crying, showing the unresolved emotions remaining after their relationship, and even after her death. The ex is still alive, so his actions can “ricochet” out to affect others. 

The next verse begins with a metaphor for relationships: “We gather stones, never knowing what they’ll mean / Some to throw, some to make a diamond ring.” Humans “gather” relationships for minimal reasons and interactions, or for important life changes, like marriage. The verse ends with “You wear the same jewels that I gave you / As you bury me.” This is another line pointing to the unresolved emotions. If the ex is wearing the jewels that she gave him, are there feelings that remain? 

The only line that is different in the next chorus is “‘Cause when I’d fight, you used to tell me I was brave.” Notice in this line she says “when I’d fight” rather than when we’d fight, explaining that they used to be on the same team. 

The bridge delivers multiple powerful lines. Swift sings “and you can aim for my heart, go for blood / But you would still miss me in your bones.” “Aim for my heart” versus “go for blood” is an interesting contrast between a classically romantic phrase and a violent one. Also, “miss me” in the second line is multidimensional. It can mean that even though he aims for her heart, he will physically miss her when he shoots, or it can mean that he will emotionally miss her no matter how violent their end is. 

The last two verses contain a lot of poetic meaning. The lines “You had to kill me, but it killed you just the same” and “You turned into your worst fears” show that the end of the relationship and the end of the speaker’s life were not successful at making the ex happy. Overall, the ex begins to spiral and their actions continue to “ricochet.” In the end of the song, Swift writes “and you’re tossing out blame, drunk on this pain / crossing out the good years.” These lines just continue to symbolize the lack of closure and remaining unresolved feelings that the ex has for the speaker. The word “drunk” also serves another multidimensional purpose of the ex being physically drunk off of alcohol because he is in pain, but he is also reflecting and creating pain. The line feels as if the ex is losing control, and almost creates the image of a drunk past lover pouring their heart out while “cursing my name, wishing I stayed.” 

Overall, this song to me reflects a deeply felt, but troubled relationship and its aftermath. It is almost an ironic viewpoint from the speaker because they are dead, showing that death doesn’t bring closure. 

202 Checkmates

Although simpler than some of the other stories we read, 202 Checkmates was an interesting commentary on race, socioeconomic class, family dynamic, and maturing. The more simple language and less descriptive world allowed for an in depth understanding of the story, and a more comprehensive discussion in class. We not only are transported into the world of our young narrator, but we also get to see her mature through her actions and experiences. I enjoyed reading this story and felt that even though it may not have been as complex as something like Escape from Spiderhead, I was able to dive deeper into the details of the story. Chess, while a commonly used trope in literature and movies, was a well written way to bring a commentary and lesson into the story, and it was different than other things I have read/seen that have chess as a main theme.

Benjamin vs. Freud

Benjamin challenges outdated views of gender roles and their relation to power in her book Bonds of Love. Sigmund Freud, a famed neurologist, theorized that men recognize their sense of self and acquire their sense of being an individual by noticing their differences and separation from their mothers. Women, however, do not recognize this in the same way. Freud theorized that women never reach the same potential as males because they lack the same degree of recognized individuality from their mothers. Benjamin challenges this notion in her book, and theorizes that Freud was incorrect. She argues that a sense of self and individual identity does not arise from recognized differences with one’s mother, but instead it comes from mutual recognition. She explains mutual recognition as acknowledging someone else as an individual person and separate identity, and having them equally recognize you back. This mutual understanding is what creates a sense of self. It also marks everyone as equals, and does not discriminate against other people as an “other”. I do agree with Benjamin’s theory for the most part. I think that mutual recognition is a much more beneficial way to obtain a sense of self, without sacrificing or demeaning someone else. This way, you do not label someone as the “other” or put yourself above them. This should be applied to everyday life as a way to avoid discrimination and power struggles. Men often use not being a woman as a way to feel more comfortable and confident in their identity, when in reality, this is not necessary at all. You can recognize yourself as a man without having to put down women. It is more of an “I am a man, and you are a woman, and that does not make me better than you or you better than me.” Freud’s logic was flawed and led to a lot of hate and negativity towards different identities. In our current political climate, we are especially polarized. Finding your identity by putting down someone else’s is not productive at all, and Benjamin does a good job of illuminating that.