herself. In the end, it was almost like a test in school when Cecilia had to choose between the two and she realized that Gil was a "real" person while Tom Baxter was just a character in a movie.One example of one of the lessons that taught this in the film was when Baxter and Cecilia were having a lavish meal with champagne, etc. When the bill came Baxter whipped out his money like he was a rich man, when in fact all he had was movie money - which had no use in the "real world." They ended up having to run out on the bill. Soon after this detail was brought up again when Baxter gave a bum waiting in line at the Soup Kitchen a bill. The poor person looked at the money almost confused and then threw it on the ground. Another great example was when Cecilia was in the church trying to explain to Baxter about God, because he had no idea about it and thought that the writers of the movie were God. The scene further emphasized the difference between the movies and reality when Baxter and Monk got into a fight. Baxter's character was written with the ability to fight a fair fight, however he was not prepared for the roughhouse street tactics of Monk. Despite getting beaten up, Baxter was completely fine because his character was not written with the ability to get hurt.I think that the Purple Rose of Cairo did a lot to refute many of the beliefs of the Adorno and Horkheimer article. The whole concept of mass customization really did not play into this film. I thought that the movie itself really gave off a sense of individuality in that there are not any other films like this around. I also felt that the ending of the film directly refuted the point made in the article about everyone has to behave in accordance with previously determined and indexed level. In my opinion if this belief were taken into effect in the making of the movie than Cecilia would have ended up flying away with Gil in the end, and not alone in a movie theatre.One of the ...
