Unlikely Couples: Movie Romance As Social Criticism (Thinking Through Cinema, 2)

Unlikely Couple s

Thinking Through Cinema Thomas E. Wartenberg, Series Editor Unlikely Couples: Movie Romance as Social Criticism, Thomas E, Wartenberg What Is Non-Fiction Cinema? On the Very Idea of Motion Picture Communication, Trevo r Ponech

FORTHCOMING Visions of Virtue in Popular Film, Joseph H. Kupfe r The Naked and the Undead: Evil and the Appeal of Horror, Cynthia A. Freeland Reel Racism: Confronting Hollywood's Construction of Afro-American Culture, Vincent Rocchio

UNLIKELY COUPLES Movie R o m a n c e a s Social Criticis m

Thomas E . W a r t e n b e r g

Westview Press A Member of the Perseus Books Group

Thinking Through Cinema All rights reserved. Printed i n the United States of America. No part of this publicatio n ma y be reproduce d o r transmitted i n an y form o r by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any informatio n storag e an d retrieva l system , without permissio n i n writing from the publisher. Copyright © 1999 by Westview Press, A Member of the Perseus Books Group Published i n 1999 i n the United State s of America by Westview Press, 5500 Centra l Avenue , Boulder , Colorad o 80301-2877 , an d i n th e United Kingdo m by Westview Press, 1 2 Hid's Cops e Road , Cumnor Hill, Oxford OX2 9JJ Find us on the World Wide Web at www.westviewpress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Dat a Wartenberg, Thomas E. Unlikely couples : movie romance as social criticism / Thoma s E . Wartenberg. p. cm , — (Thinking throug h cinema: 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8133-3438-1 (hc).—ISBN 0-8133-3439- X (pbk.) 1. Love in motion pictures. I . Title. II . Series . PN1995.9.L6W37 199 9 791.43'6543—dc21 99-2023 8 CIP The pape r use d i n thi s publicatio n meets th e requirement s of th e American Nationa l Standar d fo r Permanenc e of Pape r fo r Printe d Library Materials Z39.48-1984.

10 9

8

7

6

543

2

For

Wendy

This page intentionally left blank

Contents List of Illustrations x Filmograpfjy xii Preface x Acknowledgments xi

1 Th e Subversive Potential of the Unlikely Couple Film

i i v x

1

Destabilizing Hierarchy, 6 King Kong's Critique of "Civilization, " 9 Outlining the Genre, 14 Notes, 16

Part 1 Class 2 Pygmalion: The Flower Girl and the Bachelor

21

Establishing Difference, 22 Class as Obstacle, 25 Transforming Eliza, 28 The Ethic s of Bachelorhood, 33 The Proble m of an Ending, 42 Notes, 43 3 It Happened One Night: An Education in Humility

47

A Brat and a Lout, 49 Ellie's Brattiness, 52 Peter the Know-It-All, 54 Ellie's Education for Democracy, 57 Men's Ways of Knowing It All, 61

vii

viii

Contents

Conclusion, 65 Notes, 66 4 Pretty Woman: A Fairy Tale of Oedipalized Capitalism

67

Two Characters In Search of Salvation, 69 From Flower Girl to Prostitute, 71 "Cinderella" as a Tale of Moral Rectification, 74 Shopping Esprit, 76 Oedipus in the Boardroom, 82 A Happy Ending, 84 Notes, 86 5 White Palace: Dustbuster Epiphanies

89

An Overdetermined Unlikeliness, 90 The Sourc e of Connection, 92 Nora as Marilyn, 95 Overcoming Ambivalence, 98 A Problematic Ending, 102 Notes, 105

Part 2 Race 6 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner: Does Father Really Know Best?

111

Defending Liberalism and Integration, 113 Privileging Romantic Love, 116 Representing Racism, 120 Naturalizing Integration, 123 Conflicting Strategies, 126 Notes, 128 7 Jungle Fever: Souring on Forbidden Fruit Being Black in White America, 134 The Educatio n of Flipper Purify , 139 Angie's Story, 144 Conclusion, 150 Notes, 151

131

Contents

8 Mississippi Masala: Love in a Postcolonial World 15

ix

3

The Politic s of Postcolonial Life, 155 The Failur e of Ethnicity, 159 Two Communities, Two Responses, 161 Romance in Solidarity, 165 Two Reconciliations, 168 Notes, 170 9 Ali: Fear Eats the Soul: Th e Privileges of "Race"

173

Creating the Couple, 174 Exploring Racial Privilege, 178 Love Versus Privilege, 181 A Final Problem, 186 Notes, 188

Part 3 Sexual Orientation 10 Desert Hearts; Betting on Lesbian Lov e 19

3

"If You Don't Play, You Can't Win," 19 5 Disarming Homophobia, 19 6 Representing Lesbian Love, 199 The Problem of Class, 204 Notes, 205 11 The Crying Game: Loving in Ignorance 20

9

Destabilizing Sexuality , 210 A Strategy of Deception, 21 2 Destabilizing Difference , 214 Unveiling Difference, 218 Overcoming Difference, 222 The Politics o f Redemption, 224 Notes, 226 12 Movi e Romance and the Critique of Hierarchy 23 Narrative Film an d Social Criticism, 23 1 Romance and Self-Development, 233

1

Contents

X

Strategies of Critique, 236 The Unlikely Couple Film as Mass Art, 239 A Parting Word, 240 Notes, 241 Bibliography 24

Index 24

3

9

Illustrations

1.1 Tw o couples—one likely and one unlikely 2 1.2 Kin g Kong caresses his white beauty 1

2

2.1 Higgin s towers over Eliza as Pickering watches 2 2.2 Eliz a enters the ball under the gaze of Higgins and Pickering 3

7 1

3.1 Elli e shows she can use strategy, too 5 3.2 The Great Deception 6

8 0

4.1 Vivia n attempts t o shop on Rodeo Drive 7 4.2 Edwar d finally recognizes Vivian 8 4.3 "Prett y Woman" on Rodeo Drive 8

8 0 2

5.1 Th e yuppie meets the waitress 9 5.2 Ma x inspecting Nora's collection of Marilyn Monroe posters 9

1 6

6.1 Hollywood' s first interracial kiss 11 6.2 Christin a observe s the "passionate" couple 11

4 8

7.1 Tastin g forbidden fruit 14 7.2 Angle' s brothers hassle the passive Paulie 14

0 9

8.1 A n arranged marriage 16 8.2 Th e passio n of romantic love 16

0 6

9.1 Emm y and Ali as the object of others' gaze 18 9.2 Al i on display 18

2 5

10.1 Ca y transforming Vivian 20

0

xi

x i i Illustration

s

10.2 Lesbia n passion 20

1

11.1 Di l as the object of male desire 21 11.2 Fergus' s "discovery" 22 11.3 Fergus' s revulsion/Dil's despair 22

9 0 1

Filmography The phot o still s use d in th e tex t wer e take n fro m th e following films (photo numbers are in parentheses): Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1959 (1.1 ) King Kong, Merian C. Cooper an d Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1933 (1.2 ) Pygmalion, Anthony Asquith and Leslie Howard, 1938 (2. 1 and 2.2) It Happened One Night, Frank Capra, 1934 (3. 1 and 3.2) Pretty Woman, Gary Marshall, 1990 (4.1 , 4.2, and 4.3) White Palace, Luis Mandoki, 1990 (5. 1 an d 5.2 ) Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Stanley Kramer, 1967 (6. 1 and 6.2 ) Jungle Fever, Spike Lee, 1991 (7. 1 and 7.2) Mississippi Masala, Mira Nair, 1991 (8. 1 an d 8.2) Angst essen Seele auf (Ali: Pear Eats the Soul), Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974 (9.l an d 9.2) Desert Hearts, Donna Deitch, 1986 (10. 1 an d 10.2 ) The Crying Game, Neil Jordan, 1992 (11.1, 11.2, an d 11.3 )

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

Like many American couples, before my wife and I had our son, we would often g o to a movie on a Saturday night. On e particula r Saturda y in th e winter of 1991, w e found ourselves in Cambridge, Massachusetts , an d after som e discussion— I ha d bee n pu t of f by ad s fo r White Palace (1990) that feature d James Spade r crushin g Susa n Sarandon' s bosom—I agree d to see the film anyway. Afterward, Wendy and I found ourselves disagreeing. The centra l bon e o f contention betwee n us— I a m Jewish, sh e is not—was whether th e film was anti-Semitic: The ending , especially, had angered me. As 1 sat down to work the following Monday morning , I could not get our disagreement out of my mind. If I had been able to express my position mor e clearly , I was sure I coul d hav e convinced m y wife tha t I was right. S o I sa t down—this wa s seven years ago—to wor k out m y intuitions about the film and, after man y false starts and changes of mind, began to write the essay that contained th e seeds of this book. In writin g abou t White Palace, I decide d I wante d t o d o tw o things . First, could I justify devoting s o much time to worrying about this film? I did not share the assumption of many who write abou t popular films that elaborating on thei r shortcoming s i s sufficient justificatio n fo r the effort . My preoccupatio n wit h thi s fil m stemme d instea d fro m a sense tha t it s shortcomings detracted fro m it s interest, tha t they trivialized th e impor tant perception tha t lay at its heart . A s m y reflections expanded int o a book-length project , I have maintained m y commitment t o the idea tha t popular film, a mass art form, can be a locus for reflection on the sort s o f issues that have traditionally been the domain of philosophy. Thus, a first aim o f this stud y is to vindicat e popula r narrativ e fil m a s a philosophi c medium. But the more I thought abou t White Palace, the more I began to see it as one o f a perennial type , a genre tha t I cam e to cal l "the unlikel y couple film." All instances o f the genre , a s I cam e t o conceiv e it , explor e th e XV

XVi Prefac

e

predicament o f two individual s whose effort s t o b e a romantic coupl e transgress a social norm regulating appropriate partnering choice. For me, a centra l questio n became : Why d o s o many popular films fit this basi c pattern an d must they necessarily suffer fro m flaws similar to those that I had detected in White Palace? If so, I decided t o try to understand the sig nificance of that fact. This became my second aim in writing about film. As intimated , m y interest i n romanti c relationship s betwee n unlikel y partners i s more than simpl y academic. I a m the elde r so n of German Jewish Holocaus t survivors ; my wife is the youngest daughter of parents of German-Lutheran heritage. My grandparents belonged t o the wealthy Jewish communit y in Berlin ; my wife's paterna l grandfather wa s a mail carrier, and her maternal one, a Lutheran missionary in India. The differ ences in our religious and , to a lesser extent, class backgrounds qualify us as an unlikely couple, even if not, in this society, highly so. In part, my attraction t o film s abou t unlikely couples stems fro m m y realization tha t the very difference s betwee n m y wife an d m e that mak e our unio n un likely have been an d continue to be a source of enrichment fo r both ou r lives. It seems to me, and may have already struck the reader, that there is another "unlikel y couple" implicated here , the couple consisting of philosophy and film. The unlikelines s of this couple is constituted by the fac t tha t philosophy is supposed to be concerned with eternal truths whereas film is the mos t evanescen t o f media , on e whos e ver y substanc e i s fleeting . Indeed, Plato' s condemnatio n o f ar t fo r concerning itsel f wit h image s rather tha n "the Real " seems particularly apropos for "the reel. " So , then, what constitutes the rationale for a philosophic stud y of popular film? One claim made by film theorists, althoug h challenged with increasing frequency particularly by those influenced b y cultural studies, is that film creates passive spectators. Bu t this seems to me less a claim about the in herent nature of the medium than abou t the socia l practice o f film viewing tha t ha s developed i n mainstrea m American culture . M y practic e owes a s much t o it s origi n i n th e collegiat e cultur e o f the lat e 1960s , when I first became a passionate consumer of films, as it does to my professional status as a philosopher. When I began seriously watching films, as well as watching serious films—I am thinking here of, for example, the French new wave and Bergman—this was not simply a way of passing an entertaining evening, it was an occasion for serious, often heated, discussion. Far from being passive consumers, my college friend s an d I used the occasion of the screening— of Persona, say, or Pierrot lefou—as a jumping-

Preface

XVii

off poin t fo r discussion s of war an d peace , anomi e an d solidarity , an d other pressing issues. Although w e would not have put i t this way then, I now see us as having created a practice of active film viewing. We were simply unwilling to allow a film, its images, and its sounds to wash over our consciousnesses , only to be forgotte n a s we left th e theater . Film s wer e works demanding critical interventio n rathe r tha n acquiescence . In thi s way , we opened a space between ou r reception o f films and their attemp t t o position u s as viewers. The line s on these pages may seem distant, indeed, fro m th e sometime s intense give-and-take tha t accompanies a postflick espresso, but my hope is that th e critical practice they embody retains the trace s of its origin i n those late-nigh t session s of long ago . To help shap e that type of critica l practice in my readers is my hope for this book . The cultivatio n o f a critical practic e is , not coincidentally , m y understanding o f th e ai m o f philosophy , too . Despit e a repeate d tendenc y among philosophers to conceive their discipline a s a body of knowledge, a science, or even a science of the sciences, I see it as the practice of critique. Socrates di d not see k so much to convince his followers to accep t a body of doctrin e tha t coul d b e associate d wit h hi s name—ther e is , pace Nietzsche, n o Socratism t o compete with Platonis m o r Cartesianism—-as to cultivate in his followers the desire to challenge those platitudes of the age everyone else in fifth-century Athens took for the truth . So if there i s a spirit guiding this work, it i s not tha t of Minerva, th e goddess o f wisdom , raptl y starin g a t th e screen . I t i s rathe r tha t o f Socrates, tha t garrulou s ol d man , seated i n a coffeehouse pushin g hi s friends t o defend thei r analyse s of the movie they have just seen. I will be satisfied i f in the chapter s that follow , I manag e to convey some sense of what that would be like. Finally, it is not just the cultivation of critical capacities directed toward film for their ow n sake tha t concern s me . In developin g th e interpreta tions se t out in this book, I have focused my attention o n four categorie s central to understandin g ou r socia l world : class , race, gender, and sexual orientation. (On e section , each, is devoted to issues of class, race, and sexual orientation; gende r issue s recur throughout. ) Th e critica l awareness that I hop e t o mode l fo r readers o f this tex t i s one that identifie s corre sponding structures and practices of hierarchy. The fou r terms thus func tion a s shorthand for some of the profoundest ways in which, in our society, human beings are shaped—and oppressed, demeaned , exploited, an d

X V i i i Prefac

e

stunted. In interpretin g th e unlikel y couple films treated i n this book , I mean t o sho w how a truly critical practice can concern itself with ques tions tha t go to th e ver y heart of ho w we imagine a life worth living. If Socrates were alive today, his agora might very well be the foo d court outside the multiplex at the mall. Thomas E. Wartenberg Lower Highland Lake Goshen, Massachusetts

Acknowledgments

I hav e found working on fil m t o b e a genuinely communal experience. Whenever 1 have mentioned what 1 was writing about, people have joined in with a n enthusiasm differen t fro m anythin g I ha d previousl y experi enced i n m y scholarly life. No t al l of the spontaneou s suggestion s about unlikely couple film s tha t have helped wit h th e writin g o f this book re main i n m y memory, so I canno t explicitly thank each an d ever y person for hi s or her contribution. Let m e just say that I have welcomed the en thusiasm wit h whic h friends , colleagues , and acquaintance s have joined me in reflecting on these films. Not onl y were their suggestions usefu l for my understanding of the films, the interest they showed in this project encouraged me to pursue it. A number of people have provided significant help as I have worked on this book . First an d foremost, I want t o thank Ala n Schiffmann , whos e detailed editing and critical comments have helped shape every chapter of this book. Without his efforts, this book would have lacked whatever style and rigor it now has. More generally, I have taken inspiration from th e example Alan se t of someon e fo r whom ideas mattered i n a genuine and nonselfish manner. I cannot adequately express how important it has been for m e to have Alan as a friend an d intellectual companion. Angela Curra n an d Julie Inness—bot h no w members of the Moun t Holyoke Colleg e Philosoph y Department—provided importan t suppor t during my writing of this book. At different times , each helped me see my way more clearly as I tried to articulate precisely what I was trying to say, Ed Royce deserves credit for various efforts i n support of my undertaking. His wide knowledge and critical acumen were constant sources of assistance. Cynthia Freelan d provided insightful comments on parts o f the manuscript. Our paralle l philosophic developmen t als o gave me a sense that the changes in my philosophic interests were not completely idiosyn cratic. Stephen Davies read an earlier version of this manuscript and gave me detaile d comment s tha t were of great hel p i n refinin g m y thinking . XIX

XX

Acknowledgments

Robert Gooding-William s rea d parts o f this manuscrip t and helpe d m e think more clearly about some of the racia l issues involved, as did Awam Amkpa in regard to postcolonial ones . I want to express my appreciation t o a group of friends an d colleagues who ove r the years have given me a sense of a philosophic audience: the members of SOFPHIA, the Socialist-Feminist Philosopher s Association. Without thei r repeate d support , I would no t hav e a sense of mysel f as writing philosoph y fo r a group o f reader s who shar e my political an d philosophic orientation . Ove r th e pas t te n years, Sandr a Bartky , Dion Farquhar, Ann Ferguson , Alison Jaggar, Bill McBride, Lind a Nicholson , Richard Schmitt , Karste n Struhl , an d Iri s Young have all helped m e as friends, colleagues, and critics. They, together with al l the others to o nu merous to mention, have made it possible for me to experience philosophy as a genuine path of intellectual investigation rathe r than display. My colleagues at Mount Holyoke College, and in the Valley more generally, have been very supportive of my efforts t o mov e beyond the tradi tional boundaries of philosophy as a discipline. Earl y on, a writing semi nar organize d b y Rebecc a Fairy , who i s unfortunately no longe r a t th e college, allowed me to try out my first tentative gropings. At a later stage , the Five-Colleg e Women's Researc h Center offere d m e a more forma l opportunity t o presen t th e fruit s o f m y research . Th e Pe w Facult y Seminar o n Fil m Theory , subsequentl y th e Fil m Studie s Program , ha s been a continuing sourc e of inspiration an d critica l dialogue . The Five College Oppositional Attitudes Task Force has also been a supportive en vironment for my work. I wa s able to complet e substantia l portion s o f the manuscrip t durin g both parenta l and sabbatica l leaves from Moun t Holyok e College . Th e members o f the Philosoph y Departmen t o f the Universit y of Auckland generously provided m e with a hospitable an d stimulatin g home during my sabbatical in 1994-1995. I have been fortunate to be able to read drafts of various portions of this manuscript in a variety of different settings . Pieranna Garavas o arranged for a visit to th e University of Minnesota a t Morris. I spent a wonderfu l two days there and left encouraged by the response my work had received. I want to thank my commentator at a meeting of the Eastern Division of the America n Societ y fo r Aesthetics, Kare n Evans, for both he r sympa thetic criticism s an d he r excellen t suggestion s abou t films to consider . Morris Kaplan' s commentary at a meeting of the Pacifi c Divisio n o f th e American Societ y fo r Aesthetics helpe d m e think abou t issue s of sexual

Acknowledgments

XXi

orientation mor e competently, a s did E d Stein' s comments . The Societ y for th e Stud y of the Contemporary Visual Arts also provided an opportunity to discuss my ideas. During m y sabbatica l i n Ne w Zealand , I presente d papers a t th e University of Auckland, New England Universit y in Armidale, the Aus tralian National University, Victoria University at Wellington, Canterbur y University in Christchurch, an d Otago University in Dunedin. A t al l of these places, the comments and criticisms made by members of the audi ence contributed t o this project. A number of people have helped with the preparation of the final manuscript. Stephani e T. Hopp e di d a n admirabl e job o f copyediting. Lee Bouse spent innumerabl e hours helping prepare the illustration s for this book. Matthew Mattingl y provide d som e last-minute assistanc e with th e capturing of the images. I thank all of them for their assistanc e with this project. Earlier versions of some chapters were published in Radical Philosophy: Tradition, Counter-Tradition, Politics, edited b y Roge r Gottlie b (Phila delphia: Temple Universit y Press, 1993) ; the Journal of Social Philosophy; and Philosophy and Film, edited b y Cynthia A . Freelan d and Thomas E . Wartenberg (Ne w York an d London : Routledge , 1995) . All hav e bee n radically revised for inclusion in this volume. This is a book abou t unlikely couples. My acknowledgment s would be incomplete were I not to recognize the suppor t o f my own unlikely partner, Wendy Berg, who has always been there for me during the writing of this book . While writing abou t ho w a couple ca n ai d its partners ' self development, I have always had our relationship i n mind. Finally, a word to my son, Jake. Although h e is not ready to read what I have written, he has give n my life a joy I ha d not thought possible . I hope that this book will someday be one he treasures,

T.E.W.

This page intentionally left blank

1 The Subversive Potential of the

Unlikely Couple Film In the final sequence of Billy Wilder's 1959 comedy , Some Like It Hot, two couples are seated in a motor launch (see Photo 1.1). The pai r in the stern appears t o be lesbian, the on e in the bow heterosexual. According t o th e terms used in this book, the forme r coupl e seems unlikely, transgressiv e of the socia l nor m specifyin g tha t romanti c couples must be composed o f a man and a woman, a norm to which, by contrast, the latter couple appears to conform. Things ar e not tha t simple , however , for two of the thre e "women" in the launch are actually men in drag. The situation , then, is really the op posite of what it seems: The trul y unlikely couple is the apparently heterosexual but actuall y homosexual one seate d in th e bow , whereas the gen uinely likely couple is the apparently homosexual but actuall y heterosexual one seated astern . The imag e of these two contrasting couples, taken to gether with th e inversion of their apparen t and real natures, anticipates a number of important themes that will emerge in this stud y of a genre I call "the unlikely couple film." Let u s look mor e carefully a t th e "lesbian " couple, composed of Suga r Cane (Marilyn Monroe), a nightclub singer, and Joe (Tony Curtis), a womanizing saxophone player who i s disguised a s Josephine: Apparentl y un likely, the only really improbable element in this relationship is that Joe—a cad of the sort for whom the unfortunate Sugar has repeatedly fallen—has himself fallen fo r her. As a result, instead of pursuing his seduction, he now feels compelled to confess his love. 1

2

The Subversive Potential

Photo 1. 1 Tw o couples on e likel y an d on e unlikel y

The inversio n o f appearance an d realit y thi s seemingl y unlikel y pair embodies provides one key to understanding the structure of the unlikel y couple film, for it i s predicated o n a conflict betwee n tw o approache s t o the feature d couple. Fro m on e point o f view, which I shal l call the social perspective, a n unlikely couple is inappropriate becaus e its composition vi olates a social norm regulatin g romance . The imag e of Joe-in-drag wit h Sugar is as striking and delightful a visual representation o f unlikeliness as the movies offer—and on e that immediately registers the couple's (appar ently) transgressive character. The contrastin g poin t of view, which migh t b e called the romantic perspective, and which is usually, but not always, that of the filmmaker, deems the transgressiv e coupl e appropriate—likely, Ishal l say—settin g th e love the two partners share above the conventions it violates. Because Joe loves Sugar, the audienc e understands tha t the tw o really do belong together , regardless o f how they look. O f course , sinc e this couple' s unlikelines s is the result of Joe's dissembling , thei r unorthodo x appearanc e does not sig nify a real obstacle to their relationship .

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial 3 The situatio n is quite different i n the ten films discussed in the chapters that follow , for all feature couple s genuinely violative of the gender , class, racial, and/or sexual norms governing socially permitted romance . Hence , the conflic t between romanti c love and societal nor m represente d i n th e narrative figure of the unlikely couple cannot be resolved in these films, as it is with Sugar and Joe, with th e simple revelation that its unlikeliness is merely apparent.1 Shifting ou r attention no w to the pair seated in the bow of the launch, we see another couple whose appearance belies its reality. This apparently heterosexual, bu t actuall y homosexual, couple i s composed o f Osgoo d Fielding (Jo e E. Brown), the eccentric millionaire at the helm, and Gerry (Jack Lemmon) , who, t o giv e hi s friend , Joe, tim e to seduc e Sugar , has himself inflame d Fieldin g b y masqueradin g a s Daphne. 2 Whe n Daphne/Gerry admit s to really being a man in hopes of cooling Osgood's passion, Osgood doe s no t respon d wit h th e outrag e an d disgus t tha t Daphne/Gerry expect s but deadpan s one of the mos t famous ta g lines in film, "Nobody's perfect." Osgood's respons e t o Daphne/Gerry' s revelatio n elicit s ou r startle d laughter becaus e it treat s th e se x of a romantic partner a s just a minor matter—a "detail," to quote The Crying Game, a film I discuss in Chapte r 11—rather than the majo r problem we know it to be. But if, as it should , our laughte r prompt s u s to reflec t o n why Osgood' s respons e i s so startling, th e subversio n of heterosexualiry's normativ e status has been initiated. The endin g of Some Like It Hot thus gestures toward a crucial feature of the genre—transgressiv e romanc e as a vehicle fo r socia l critique . B y focusing attentio n o n th e socia l norm s governing romanti c attachments , these film s confron t very basic questions abou t social hierarchy , for th e norms reflec t fundamenta l societa l assumption s about th e differentia l worth o f human beings. The interpretation s presente d i n this book em phasize how the very structure of the unlikely couple film entails this pos sibility: Sinc e the narrative s of such films must mediate th e conflic t between th e romanti c lov e that binds th e unlikel y partners an d th e socia l norms it violates, they can mobilize sympathy for the couple for purposes of critique. My attributio n o f socially critical ambition s t o popula r narrativ e films like Some Like It Hot may strike readers as odd, for such films do not pre sent themselve s a s vehicles for seriou s social analysis . Some Like It Hot can stan d a s a metapho r fo r m y response t o thi s challenge : Sugar , th e

4

Tht Subversive Pttenfial

stereotypical "dumb blonde" the womanizing Joe targets for seduction, invites eas y condescension , bu t th e mor e h e come s t o kno w her—a s Josephine, h e plays at being a sympathetic woma n frien d whil e actuall y acquiring the informatio n necessar y to be d her—th e mor e difficul t h e finds it to reduce the totality of her being to her appealing surface , Joe's initia l attitud e towar d Suga r resemble s the perspectiv e dominan t in academic film studies: Too often, the "sexy" production values of narrative films , especiall y Hollywoo d films , ar e taken a s a license fo r conde scension,3 Although thi s attitude has not gone unchallenged, the reigning assumption has been that popular narrative films are necessarily complicit with dominant social interests.4 Since many of those who write about film see themselves as hostile to such interests, they have been correspondingl y suspicious o f box office success . Assuming a posture o f superiority, these writers contemptuously dismiss such fare as superficial. The stanc e adopted i n this stud y is reminiscent instead of a chastened Joe's at the en d of Some Like It Hot: Just as he no longer reads Sugar's at tractions as evidence of her superficiality, I refuse th e reflexiv e condescen sion tha t popular narrative film often evokes . To repeat, a central goal of this book i s to demonstrate tha t unlikely couple films include importan t social criticism even as their audiences find them entertaining an d appeal ing. To th e exten t tha t m y interpretations succee d i n showin g that in stances o f th e genr e moun t sophisticate d challenge s t o hierarchy — whether o f class, race, gender, o r sexua l orientation—they als o illustrate how empathetic yet critical readings of these films reveal more about their structure an d effect s tha n the hypertheoretica l dismissal s o prevalent i n the academic study of film. Although I emphasiz e the sociall y critical, henc e subversive , potential of the unlikel y couple film, I recogniz e that not every , or even any, individual film fully and consistently realizes that potential. Works of art, like other cultural products, bear traces of the contradictions of their societies , A film that seek s t o subver t the hol d o f one mode of social domination may inadvertently support tha t o f another. Alternatively, a film that at tacks, say, one stereotyp e ma y employ others, equall y demeaning.5 Film s do not liv e up to the idea l of consistency any more than do their human makers. More problematic for my argument are those unlikely couple films with narratives that suppor t dominan t social interests. The ac t of criticism re quired by these films is complex, calling for an analysis of how they mute the genre' s critical potential. So, for example, my interpretation o f Pretty Woman (1990) , in Chapter 5 , shows how th e fil m use s specifi c narrative

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial S and representational strategies t o contain the critique of class and gender privilege that it initially promises. The bod y of this book, then, comprises detailed interpretation s o f the narrative and representationa l strategie s o f ten unlikel y couple films and focuses on the ways in which thos e strategie s both articulat e an d contain the critica l potentia l inheren t in th e genre . Suc h detailed interpretation s are necessary , for only through the m doe s it become possible t o demon strate how a particular aspect of a film either subverts or supports a given social interest. All too often, film scholars neglect the context in which an image appears , taking it s mer e presence t o establis h a film's politics—so that, for example, the presenc e o f a heterosexual coupl e at the en d o f a film i s take n a s evidence o f th e film' s suppor t o f patriarchy, 6 Bu t a s my readings demonstrate, nothing follows simply from th e presence of an image, for the issue is how the narrativ e positions it and how it is received by an audience. A secon d reaso n for offerin g suc h detailed interpretation s i s to sho w that popular films are worthy of the kind s of serious intellectual engagement philosophers have generally reserved for written texts. Because these films question the extent to which hierarchic social relationships are legitimate, they inevitabl y raise important question s abou t a wide rang e o f philosophic issues : What role can romantic love play in the lives of human beings? Ho w ca n individual s transform thei r live s t o brin g the m mor e fully int o accord with thei r sense of what is an appropriate lif e t o live ? Is education accomplishe d onl y throug h explici t instructio n o r ar e ther e other, perhaps mor e important, processe s throug h whic h huma n beings learn? Why i s our finitude—ou r dependenc e an d mortality— -so difficul t for human beings t o accept an d how do we seek to avoi d acknowledging it? What is the natur e of human desire? What assumptions about gender structure ou r sexuality ? To demonstrat e tha t popula r narrativ e films can actually addres s suc h philosophic concern s an d elucidat e the m i n thei r own distinctive way requires that one look at films carefully an d in some detail, treating them a s texts worthy of serious and sustained attention . Still, the overriding concern of the unlikely couple film is the legitimacy of social hierarchy. Despite th e rang e of its philosophic concerns , it is in its confrontatio n with issue s surrounding hierarchy—Wha t i s so problematic abou t hierarchy? Why i s it such a persistent phenomeno n i n hu man life , one s o difficult t o eradicate?—tha t the unlikel y couple film establishes itself as a truly philosophic genre . My approach t o film owes a great deal t o the wor k of Stanle y Cavell, Distinctive o f Cavell's approach i s the way he places film and philosoph y

t

Tht Subversive Pttenfial

in dialogue, according neither pride of place.7 Central to both, he argues, is a concern wit h th e difficultie s huma n beings hav e in acknowledgin g others as folly and completely real. 8 Through nuanced readings of an im pressive variety o f works o f literature, philosophy, an d film , Cavel l ha s demonstrated ho w important a n issu e this proble m o f acknowledgmen t has been for intellectuals and artists in the modern West. Cavell has written a t length about two groups of Hollywood films from the 1930 s an d 1940s—"comedie s of remarriage" and "melodramas of the unknown woman"—that use romance as a means of addressing the prob lem o f acknowledgment . I n justifying hi s philosophical claims , Cavel l shows, in a series o f insightfu l an d darin g readings, that these films are both vehicles for mass entertainment and genuinely creative works of art. Despite th e sophisticatio n o f Cavell's readings, they are beset b y a fundamental inadequacy : For him , the ultimat e roo t o f th e failur e t o ac knowledge is always psychological, explicable in terms of the individual's confrontation wit h elementa l features o f "the huma n situation." As a result, his reading s ten d t o leve l th e socia l an d historica l setting s o f th e texts/works h e considers. Although h e does, a t times , admi t that regard for socia l context can be an important consideration in interpreting a film, his analyses of how the struggl e fo r acknowledgment presents itself con sistently scant the specific sociohistorical terms through which individuals actually live that struggle . My focus on the centrality of hierarchy in the unlikely couple film thus significantly departs from Cavell' s emphases. Although I do not deny that film tackles issues fundamental t o the traditions o f Western philosophy — indeed, rny interpretations explicitl y see k t o suppor t Cavell' s contentio n that they do—1 insist that those issue s not only arise in specific historica l and socia l circumstances but inevitabl y present themselve s to individuals in terms that registe r those specificities . As a result, the analyse s of individual unlikely couple films contained i n this volume are obliged t o show both that the films are philosophically illuminatin g an d that thei r philosophical ruminations emerge out o f and ar e marked by these specificities of sociohistorical context . Destabilizing Hierarch y The guidin g perspective of this study , then, is that throug h narrative s of transgressive romance, the unlikely couple film confronts various forms of social oppression. To see exactly how the genre addresses these issues, we need a more developed understandin g of its salient characteristics.

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial

7

The unlikel y couple fil m trace s th e difficul t cours e of a romance be tween two individuals whose social status makes their involvement problematic. The sourc e of this difficulty i s the couple s transgressive makeup, its violation o f a hierarchic social nor m regulatin g the composition o f romantic couples. For example, in the context of the American South in the early decades of the twentiet h century—althoug h not onl y there o r only then—a black man and a white woman constituted a n unlikely couple because o f socia l norms—an d ofte n laws—agains t miscegenation . Transgressors would often find themselves in dire straits, as the tragic his tory of lynching attests. 9 Of course, breaching the norm s regulating cou ple formation nee d not result in tragedy. Indeed, on e source of interest in the genre is in the shee r variety of its narrative outcomes. Thus, althoug h tragedy loom s a s a possible fat e fo r thes e sociall y transgressive couples , more often tha n not the lovers triumph over adversity. The norm s governing romantic relationships are , of course, themselves reflective of more basic assumptions about human beings. Only in a society in which their positio n i n a social hierarchy assign s individuals thei r human worth woul d a couple be deemed inappropriat e simpl y because it violated suc h principles o f socia l ordering. By criticizing restrictiv e ro mantic norms , the unlikel y couple film questions th e divisio n o f societ y into groups of differing socia l value. Because hierarchies o f class, gender, race, and sexua l orientation ar e so structurally central to our society, I have chosen to examine films that feature problemati c romance s o f a cross-class, interracial , o r homosexua l character,10 (The film s depictin g clas s and race injustice are heterosexual romances and so raise issues of gender.) All the films I discuss present in teresting and , I would argue, unique modes of interrogating th e natur e of hierarchy, as well as the subtl e and not-so-subtle injurie s it inflicts , Because of its reliance on what I call the narrative figure of the unlikely couple, a figure constituted by the transgressio n o f a principle o f hierar chic ordering, th e genr e i s in a unique position t o destabiliz e categorica l distinctions, t o provide it s audience with experiences that sho w the lim ited validity of such categories. More tha n simpl y a visual image, the nar rative figure includes two conceptual elements a t once in tension an d potentially i n dialogue—a n awarenes s of both th e attraction betwee n th e partners, their desir e fo r one another, and the transgression resulting fro m that attraction , its violation o f social norm s regulatin g romanti c union . The narrativ e figure of the unlikel y couple, a microcosmic crystallizatio n of that basic conflict, determines the narrativ e possibilities o f the unlikely couple film, its potential to criticize th e different position s i n the conflict.

8

Tht Subversive Pttenfial

The first element, then, of the narrativ e figure of the unlikely couple is the romanti c couple itself. The obviousnes s of this fact conceal s its com plexity, for the fac t tha t love makes this a couple ha s important conse quences. In particular, the narrative figure includes what I have called th e romantic perspective, according to which the experience of romantic love is one of the principal spurs to human self-development. Fro m this point of view, the lov e the tw o partner s hav e for on e anothe r allow s the m t o achieve a fuller sens e of their possibilities . Hence, the norm s that would deny this all-important experience, that stand in the way of the couple, are subject to criticism. By contrast, the socia l perspective focuse s o n th e couple' s unlikeliness , the secon d significan t element o f the narrativ e figure. Now, the couple' s transgression become s a justification for disapproval, fo r the socia l per spective takes such regulation o f romantic relationships as essential to th e continuity of huma n social life : The unlikel y couple, by contravening a principle of hierarchy, portends socia l chaos and must either be prevented from formin g or sanctioned in some way, Because these two perspectives coexist in tension in the narrative figure of the unlikely couple, that is, because each perspective denies the other' s validity, the basi c task fo r the film's narrative is to someho w resolve th e tension betwee n them , t o provid e a for m o f narrativ e development tha t satisfies th e audience . A s a result, m y discussions o f particular films repeatedly recu r to what I shal l cal l their narrative strategies—the paths mapped out to resolv e this tension. Fo r example, in Shakespeare' s narrative of tragic love, Romeo and'Juliet--a significan t dramatic forebear of the genre—the deaths of the romantic partners serve to indict the feudal clans for treatin g clan membership as a significant social difference o r principle of hierarchy that marriages should not transgress, 11 The narrativ e strategy of such a work is to exhibi t th e dee p an d unexpecte d cost s exacte d by practices endorsed by the social perspective. To effect thei r narrative strategies, the films deploy representational strategies—specific depiction s o f character. A straightforwar d example is D, W . Griffith's portraya l of black men, in his problematic 1915 masterpiece , Birth of a Nation, a s pathologically desirous of white women, their professions of love veiling their rea l intent: rape . Griffiths representationa l strategy here implements his narrative strategy: vindication of Ku Klux Klan vigilantism. The tension s embodied i n the narrative figure of the unlikely couple explain a number of features o f the genre , most importantly its critical po tential. For a film to fully endorse the romantic perspective, for example, it

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial

9

would hav e to demonstrat e problem s with th e socia l one. Most o f th e films analyze d i n thi s book—fro m Pygmalion (1938 ) t o Desert Hearts (1986)—embrace the romanti c perspective on the unlikely couple, hence are critical of on e o r mor e forms o f hierarchy. As we shal l see, however, the specifi c narrativ e strategies employe d differ radicall y from one an other. Fo r example, cross-class romances frequently employ the trop e o f transformation—one partner' s clas s position bein g adjuste d up—as i n Pretty Woman—or down—a s in White Palace (1990)—to accord with th e other's. Films endorsing the social point of view, on the other hand, find a way to defea t the romanti c perspective—fo r example , by denying wha t th e couple is feeling is really love. We see this possibility worked out in Jungle Fever (1991), whose title alone implies that the relationship at issue is not an instance of love but rather one incited by sexual stereotypes of the forbidden Other . The rang e of the genre's possible narrative strategies is not exhausted by the option s o f endorsing straightforwardly either on e or the othe r per spective embodied in the couple's narrative figure. A more complex strategy, registering the deepest potential of the genre, is that of destabilizing the hierarchicall y organized categor y both perspectives employ to articu late themselves . Somethin g lik e this i s going on , fo r example, in The Crying Game (1992), a film less concerned with criticizing the assumption that heterosexualit y is the onl y appropriate sexua l orientation tha n with undermining the very categorical scheme that opposes hetero- an d homosexuality a s the tw o mutuall y exclusive and exhaustiv e modes of human sexual expression. King Kong's Critiqu e o f "Civilization " Although King Kong, the 193 3 classi c directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, is not a n unlikely couple film—the great ape's love is unreciprocated and , anyway, the would-be couple' s composition trans gresses a biological rather than a social barrier—the structure of its narrative illustrates with exemplary clarity the different narrativ e strategies that define th e genre . Fo r m y purposes, then, a n extende d readin g of King Kong ca n illustrate how popular narrative film can be the sit e fo r a pro found, even philosophic, confrontation with the injustices of hierarchy. As noted, the Kin g Kong-Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) "couple" is not re ally a couple a t all , for Darro w ha s absolutel y n o romanti c interest i n

10

Tht Subversive Potential

Kong, who seem s more th e rapis t tha n th e lover . Taking thi s point , th e couple's violation o f the human/animal hierarchy makes it a very improbable couple, on e that ca n serve as a visual marker of the ide a of unlikeli ness—or, more precisely, the ide a that romanti c relationship s tha t violat e hierarchic assumptions require suppression. 12 The film's central sequence s are each identifie d wit h a n island—Skull Island, first, and the n Manhattan—an d eac h exemplifies on e o f the tw o points o f view embodied i n th e narrativ e figur e o f the unlikel y couple . Because Kong' s defeat and Darrow' s rescu e are presented a s a victory for the ideal s of "civilization," th e Skul l Island sequenc e embodies th e socia l perspective.13 But once Kong has been humanized by his love for Darrow, his deat h a t th e en d o f the Manhatta n sequenc e i s frame d a s a tragi c crime. The film's indictmen t o f Western civilizatio n fo r its violent sup pression of an Other i t does not understand illustrates the unlikely couple film's destabilization of hierarchy.14 We can see how the film develops th e dialectic between thes e two perspectives by examining first the Skull Island sequence. Because Kong is an animal—and a monstrous one at that—he represents unregulated desire , that is, desire beyond or beneath socia l control. Befor e ever laying eyes on him, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), Kong's eventual captor, describes the mythica l creature in those kitsch-uncann y terms meant to arouse our dread: "Neither beas t no r man , somethin g monstrous , stil l living , stil l holding that islan d in the grip of fear."15 Hug e an d powerful, Kong overwhelms even the dinosaurs residing on Skull Island. But Kong' s physical size is not th e primar y reason he poses a threat t o society; rather, i t i s his unbounde d sexua l desire, requirin g frequen t an d copious offering s o f young women b y Skull Island's huma n inhabitants , that makes him an object of terror.16 Only through thi s provision is Kong persuaded t o honor th e barrie r tha t separate s hi m fro m thes e natives . When th e arriva l of Denharn an d hi s troupe disrupt s a sacrificial cere mony to the great ape, Darrow is captured and offered u p instead. Perhaps the gift of this beautiful white virgin will be sufficient propitiation . The socia l perspective i s represented in the film by Carl Denham, who believes himsel f capabl e o f controllin g Kong' s transgressiv e desir e b y force, repression . Initiall y feignin g a n interes t onl y i n capturin g Kong' s image on film, Denham's real intent i s to display the awe-inspirin g beas t before the fascinated gaze of New York's theater-going public. 17 In it s Skul l Islan d sequence , then , King Kong endorse s th e socia l per spective, an d Darrow' s strenuou s resistanc e to Kon g confirms it s right -

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial

11

ness—she must escape Kong's monstrous lust, a point emphasized by her repeated an d legendary screams. But it is not just Darrow s terror, or even the fac t tha t Kon g ha s abducted her , tha t condemn s th e relationship : Above all, it is the very unnaturalness of such an erotic union that i s hor rifying,18 Darrow' s rescu e is thus doubl y welcome, not onl y because she desires it, but als o because it puts an end to the prospect o f an unimaginable sexual transgression. King Kong's Skul l Island sequence thus presents Kong's defeat as a vindication o f the socia l perspective. Sinc e the hug e ap e is a wild beast , his desire is not amenable to civilized restraint: His frustration threaten s society, for Kong will smash anything that stand s i n the way of his gratifica tion. Unregulated desir e must be met by social coercion, for in its drive for fulfillment, i t spares nothing. King Kong her e approximates Freud's diag nosis, in Civilization and Its Discontents, of society's hostilit y t o the indi vidual's deman d fo r libidina l gratification . Sinc e Kon g can b e rea d a s unsocialized desire, hi s defeat affirm s society' s tragi c deman d fo r renunciation. King Kong woul d b e a far less interesting film , however , without th e Manhattan sequence' s reversal of perspective, which presents another pos sibility fo r the unlikel y couple film: an indictment o f society for murder ing love. Transported fro m hi s home to New York and billed by Denham as the Eighth Wonde r o f the World—a designation th e film uses self-ref erentially in its own title sequence—Kon g becomes a tragic hero, trivial ized an d misunderstood by the "civilized" society that ultimatel y destroy s him. The event s of this sequence of the film are well known: Maddened by popping flashbulbs he believes ar e threatening Darrow , Kon g breaks his chains an d escape s Denham' s frea k show . Wreaking havo c a s he goes , Kong searches for, and finally finds, Darrow, although no t without killing a great many people i n some of the film's most memorable and terrifyin g footage. With Darrow in his grip, he makes his famous climb up the sid e of the Empir e Stat e Building , mistakenl y believin g tha t doin g s o will bring hi m t o safety . Menace d b y fighte r planes , Kon g protectivel y set s Darrow down on a ledge, then bravely turns to face them, ready to give his life t o defen d th e on e he loves. Ironically, Kong's chivalrous action bring s on their attack , for, once the pilots se e that Darrow i s out of danger, they unleash their weapons agains t him . Hi s bod y riddled with bullets , Kon g falls 10 2 stories t o th e pavemen t below, to th e fascinate d horror o f th e crowd gathered t o watch.19

12

Tht Subversive Pttenfial

Photo 1. 2 King Kong caresses Mi while beauty

Kong remains to the end a monster capabl e of great violence, yet his love for Darro w has had a civilizing effect. With its emphasis on the significance of his transformation, King Kong adumbrates the unlikel y couple film's belief in the power of love. Kong's passion for the beautiful, white woman has not only socialized hi s monstrous desir e but brought ou t the courtl y lover submerged within this savage beast, although onl y in the final scene on the Empire State Building is Kong shown unambiguously transformed by that passion. In a series o f remarkable shots in which th e camera alternately as sumes the place of both Kong and the gunners who ki E him, the audienc e understands that Kong is prepared to die to protect his beloved. Kong's aggression is given an appropriate direction throug h his love for this beauty, In a famou s se t piec e i n hi s Phenomenology of Spirit, th e Germa n philosopher G, W. F . Hegel claims that riskin g one's lif e i n a struggle t o the death is automatically a step i n the developmen t o f freedom or "civi lization": Human being s encounte r eac h othe r mos t fundamentall y as threats t o their self-certainty , so that to confirm hi s or her own existence , each must seek the other's death . And "it is only through stakin g one's lif e that freedom is won."20

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial

13

On Skul l Island, Kong engages a variety of prehistoric monster s in just such life-and-death struggles. But so long as these beasts fight simply for their ow n survival, there i s nothing elevating abou t these struggles. The crucial ste p occur s when on e elect s t o d o battle no t ou t o f self-interes t but fo r the sak e of another'—ou t o f love . Now, the significanc e of th e willingness t o ris k one' s lif e ha s bee n transformed : To choos e t o ris k one's lif e fo r th e sak e of another—a s when Kon g fight s no t merel y to possess Darro w bu t t o protec t her—i s humanizin g in th e sens e Hegel describes. Thus, although Kong' s violent rampage s in search o f Darrow o n both Manhattan an d Skul l Islands involv e similar scenes of mayhem, the tw o sequences make fundamentally differen t impact s on us because we realize that in Manhattan h e searches not simpl y to gratif y hi s lust but out o f a lover's genuine concern. The collatera l damage Kong wreaks is only a byproduct o f his limite d understandin g of his situation , for h e react s t o a threat i n th e onl y way he knows—in a violent jungle, only the stronges t survive.21 But no w he is no longer simpl y the savag e beast, for his desire has been socialized, indeed "civilized," through his love. Kong's humanizatio n ground s the film's critique o f "civilizing" repression a s a means of controlling th e Other . First, Denham—Western civi lization's emissar y to th e island—believe s h e ca n subdue Kon g by force . Later, when the grea t ap e proves too muc h for Denham, America's ma chine guns complete the task. But at that point we realize society's violent suppression of its Other ignores an alternative, nonviolent means of subduing nature: beauty. In effect , civilizatio n ha s been indicted for its exclusive reliance on violence to socialize the savage. At the end of the film's Manhattan section, then, things appear in a very different ligh t than the y di d o n Skul l Island. I n th e earlie r sequence , Kong's defea t ha d signifie d th e validit y of civilization's nee d t o regulat e sexual desire . Now , we experienc e Kong' s deat h a s tragic, cause d by a hubristic "civilization" quick to violence but blind to beauty. But althoug h on e might tak e Kong' s death t o represen t th e film's endorsement of the romantic perspective, something more profound has transpired; The film has destabilized $& hierarchic terms on which society's suppression of Kong was based. Thus, although our experience of Kong's death as tragic precludes us from endorsin g the social perspective, neither can we support his abduction of Darrow. The ver y terms in which we conceive of Kong and his actions are rendered inadequate by our experience of the film, for the tragic death of the giant ape destabilizes the human/animal and culture/nature dichotomies. Despite appearing to be the paradigm of animality

14

Tht Subversive Pttenfial

and unsocialize d nature , Kong's susceptibility t o Darrow s beauty proves that he exceeds the grasp of these oppositions . This destabilization of a hierarchic framework operatin g at the base of our thinking and acting is one of the deepest possibilities fo r the unlikely couple film: It undermines our faith i n our habitual modes of conceptualization. The dialecti c betwee n society' s recognitio n tha t sexua l desire mus t be regulated and the individual s need for emotional fulfillment i s the terrai n on which the unlikely couple narratives discussed in this book are worked out. The Kong-Darro w couple shares the opprobrium directed a t the socially unlikel y couples portrayed i n thes e films. Although Kong' s one sided lov e for Darrow i s never reciprocated, King Kong nonetheles s pre sents the sam e opposition betwee n socia l prohibition an d romanti c love inherent in the narrative figure of the unlikely couple,22 King Kong touches on another aspec t of many unlikely couple films. So far, I hav e avoided the issu e of whether th e film is racist or Eurocentric . Clearly, however, there are features of its narrative that call out for critical examination on this score . For example, the film presents a white woman as the epitome of human beauty: Many native women had been sacrificed to Kong, but only Darrow, the white beauty, is fit to become the object of his love. In addition, despite its destabilization of the dichotomy, the film nonetheless operate s wit h a n embarrassingl y crude opposition between civilization an d savager y i n it s presentatio n o f th e native s o f Skul l Island—all of whom are African American actors made up as "savages"— as ignorant brutes. I cit e thes e instance s of the film's Eurocentrism no t s o much to show that th e film suffers fro m thes e flaws but mor e to use it as an example of how even a film that is critical of Western civilizatio n for resorting to excessive violence can nonetheless unthinkingly rehearse other ugl y aspects of Eurocentrism. The following chapters continu e this interpretive prac tice: Although th e interpretation s o f unlikely couple films they contai n seek to demonstrate these films' critical potential, the y also examine ways in whic h th e films' narrative an d representationa l structure s contain o r evade that potential .

Outlining the Genre An inde x of th e usefulnes s o f the ide a of the unlikel y couple i s that as soon a s one hears of it, one sees it everywhere, in contexts both expecte d and surprising . Indeed, th e respons e I mos t ofte n encounte r whe n dis-

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial

15

cussing these films is for my interlocutors t o pause, think for a moment, and then as k me if I have thought o f , their favorite unlikely couple film. Although thi s response is gratifying—I lik e seeing how quickly people war m t o th e ide a tha t i t make s sense to grou p thes e film s a s a genre—the vast range of unlikely couple films raises the question not only of why it is important t o study this narrative figure in relation to film but also—and mor e important—of why I choose t o investigate i t in relatio n to these films in particular . I defe r a n answe r to th e firs t questio n t o th e concluding chapter and turn to the second now. For reasons part historica l an d par t conceptual , the ide a for this boo k took shape gradually, between the year s 1990 an d 1992 , whe n I notice d that a number of popular films debuting at that time—White Palace, Pretty Woman, Jungle Fever, Mississippi Masa/a (1992) , and The Crying Game— employed th e sam e narrative figure. Struck by their similarity—an d de spite thei r many , interesting difference s fro m on e another— I wondere d whether it made sense to think of these as belonging to a genre the socially critical potential of which constituted its attraction t o so many filmmakers. To justify my growing sense that the unlikely couple film was an important, but overlooked, type, I thought i t important t o provide antecedent s to those current films that had first caught my attention. The primary reason fo r this wa s that th e film s themselve s ofte n include d reference s to predecessor films, so that I felt I could only understand the recent films by relating them to the earlier ones. A most obvious example is Jungle Fever: Unless viewed wit h Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) i n mind—th e film t o whic h Jungle Fever refer s i n it s explici t disparagemen t o f Hollywood's treatmen t o f interracial romance—an importan t aspec t o f Spike Lee's agenda would be lost. Similarly, to understand Pretty Woman, I found myself going back to Pygmalion, its model, viewing that film more closely than I had before. In thi s way, nine of the te n films for which I provide interpretations i n the body of this book suggested themselves . Five are the films from 199 0 to 199 2 tha t represent contemporar y instances of the genrej four ar e earlier films that helped t o establish its conventions. That leaves only one to explain: Rainer Werner Fassbinder' s 197 4 masterpiece , Alt: Fear Eats the Soul (Angst essen Seek auj). Ali differ s fro m th e othe r film s treate d i n th e book in being neither in the Englis h language nor a popular narrative. Its analysis of the persistenc e of racism best exemplifie s th e potential o f the genre to extend our understanding o f racial injustice, however. This film, which I believe to be truly profound and, I might add, to have been pro foundly misrea d by its many academic critics, completes the "cast" of the

16

Tht Subversive Pttenfial

ten films through whose interpretations I hope to establish th e philosophical significance of the unlikely couple film.

Notes 1. Some unlikel y couple film s rely on suc h a revelation, although ofte n thei r audiences know full well that the unlikeliness is merely apparent. One exampl e is Eddie Murphy' s 198 8 comedy , Coming to America, in whic h a n African princ e masquerades as a poor student . 2.1 leave to th e sid e th e questio n o f what precis e figur e th e cross-dressin g Daphne/Gerry represents . Fo r an interesting perspectiv e on cross-dressin g tha t articulates it as a phenomenon distinct fro m homosexuality , see Marjorie Garber , Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (New York: Routledge, 1992). 3. The paradig m her e is Laura Mulvey's amazingly influential article, "Visual Pleasure and Narrativ e Cinema," Screen, 16:3 (Autum n 1975); pp . 6—18 , accord ing t o which narrativ e cinema as a whole i s complicit with structure s o f socia l domination. 1 discuss this view more fully in Chapter 12 . 4. Many emendations to Mulvey's paradigm have been suggested, no t least by Mulvey hersel f i n "Afterthought s o n 'Visua l Pleasur e an d Narrativ e Cinema ' Inspired b y Duel in the Sun (King Vidor, 1946)," Framework, 15-1 7 (1981) : pp. 12—15. Most do not challenge her basic perspective, but for just such a challenge, see Noel Carroll, "The Imag e of Women on Film: A Defense of a Paradigm," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48:4 (Fall 1990): pp. 349-360. 5. My discussion of King Kong (1933) later in this chapter explores this type of inconsistency. 6. Again, King Kong furnishes a n example, for the contex t of Kong's death af fects the audience's reaction to the presence of the human couple at the film's end. 7. Cavell has written a great dea l abou t film. Three of his books—The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film (Cambridge, MA : Harvar d University Press, 1979) , Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge, MA: Harvar d Universit y Press, 1981) , and Contesting Tears: The Hollywood Melodrama of the Unknown Woman (Chicago : University o f Chicag o Press, 1996)—dea l exclusively with film , an d h e ha s written numerou s article s that discus s particular films as well a s more general topic s i n th e philosoph y o f film. 8. Probably th e best introduction t o Cavell' s understanding o f this problem is "Knowing an d Acknowledging " i n Must We Mean What We Say? (Ne w York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), pp. 238-266. 9. John Singleton' s fil m Rosewood (1987 ) show s ho w deeply ingraine d thi s norm was in the South at that time. 10. There are sources of unlikeliness other tha n thos e I have been able to in clude i n thi s study . Differences in age , physical ability , and religio n hav e been

The Sahnts'm Pftuntial

17

subjects of such interesting films as Harold and Maude (1971), Manhattan (1979), Coming Home (1978) , Children of a Lesser God (1986), and A Stranger Among Us (1994), Incestuous couple s ar e another variatio n tha t I hav e not discussed , although film s lik e Murmur of the Heart (1971 ) an d Sister, My Sister (1995 ) provocatively explor e thi s issue . I hav e als o limite d thi s stud y to soun d films , thereby passing over such classic films as Birth of a Nation (1915) and City Lights (1931). Monster films , especiall y th e man y film adaptations o f Dracuia, are an other offshoo t o f th e genre , a s ar e "buddy films, " suc h a s Thelma and Louise (1993) and the Lethal Weapon series . All of these deserve attentio n i n thek own right. 11.1 develo p thi s interpretatio n in an unpublishe d manuscrip t titled , "Romantic Lov e an d th e Feuda l Household : Romeo and Juliet a s Socia l Criticism." 12. Any complet e interpretatio n o f King Kong need s t o tak e accoun t o f th e film's identification o f Kong with blacks. But it is equally important no t to reduce Kong's "Otherness" to that of blacks. For a more extended discussion of the film, see my "Humanizing th e Beast: King Kong and the Representation of Black Male Sexuality" i n Classic Whiteness, Danie l Bernardi , ed.(Minneapolis: Universit y o f Minnesota Press , forthcoming). 13. My us e of "civilization" is meant to ech o Freud' s i n Civilization [Kultur] and its Discontents, James Strachey, tr. and ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1962) . The scare-quote s registe r m y conviction that his usage is Eurocentric . 14. For purposes of my argument, I trea t th e two sequences as employing two different narrativ e strategies . Actually , the secon d sequenc e transcends th e firs t and represents the film's real view. There are clues to this during the first sequence itself. 15. All quotations from King Kong are from m y own transcription of the film' s sound track . For interesting claim s abou t the anxiet y that anomalie s present, as well a s reflections on th e nee d fo r order , se e Mary Douglas , Purity and Danger (New York and Washington, DC: Praeger, 1966). 16. It i s worth notin g tha t th e very characteristics tha t mak e Kong a creature to be feared, and even killed, also make him a n object of fascination for Denham and the other members of his expedition. Indeed , their reaction to him mixes fear with attraction, and Denham's plan explicitly recognizes this. We see here an anticipation o f the insigh t tha t unlikeliness , althoug h base d o n a n interdiction o f desire, ca n also incite tha t ver y desire, a n idea tha t appear s in a number of un likely couple films, preeminently Jungle Fever. 17. King Kong thus self-reflexively posit s film as a tool of social violence. 18. When, of course, i t i s not simpl y an objec t of voyeuristic curiosity: Ho w would it work? 19. Because Kon g represents African Americans , his love for a white woma n triggers racis t fears of miscegenation tha t ar e only stille d throug h a n ac t analo-

IS

Tht Subversive Potential

gous to lynching. For an interesting, if incomplete, account of the film from thi s point o f view , se e James Snead , White Screens: Black Images (Ne w Yor k an d London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 1-36 . 20. Hegel make s thi s clai m i n th e passag e "Self-Consciousness " i n hi s Phenomenology of Spirit, A . V . MiEer, tr. (Oxford, UK: Oxfor d University Press, 1977), p. 114 . 21. In "King Kong: Ape an d Essence, " in Planks of Reason: Essays on the Horror Film, Barry Keith Grant, ed. (Metuchen, NJ, and London: The Scarecro w Press, 1984), pp. 215—244 , Noel Carrol l present s th e fil m a s "a popular illustration o f Social Darwinist metaphors" (p. 216). 22. Although Darro w does no t com e to lov e Kong, the possibilitie s o f love springing from such roots are explored in films like The Piano (1994) and Letter from an Unknown Woman (1949).

Part One

Class

This page intentionally left blank

2 Pygmalion The Flower G i r l and the Bachelor

Pygmalion, Anthon y Asquiths 193 8 fil m adaptatio n o f Georg e Bernard Shaw's famous play, presents two of the central themes of this study of the genre of the unlikely couple film. The first theme is the potential of narratives of transgressive love to undermine assumptions about the legitimac y of social hierarchy. Pygmalion i s exemplary in this regard, for it critique s such hierarch y alon g tw o distinct dimensions . O n th e on e hand , Eliza Doolittle's (Wend y Hiller ) transformatio n fro m flowe r gir l t o "duchess " vindicates Henr y Higgins' s (Lesli e Howard ) rejectio n o f the aristocrati c pretension that social privilege is a mark of innate worth. And if bearing is the outwar d expression o f socia l merit , then Eliza' s abilit y to pas s as a member of the aristocrac y shows that, on the contrary , education, rather than biology, is its basis. Pygmalion doe s not stop with it s deflation of the aristocracy, however, but turn s its critique back on th e criti c himself, revealing Higgins's belie f in th e superiorit y o f the "ma n of science " to b e equally unfounded. This masculinis t assumptio n als o keep s Eliz a fro m negotiating a successful relationshi p with Higgins after their triumph and shows that assumptions about gender ar e as significant a problem for ro mance as assumptions about class. A second theme of this study of the unlikely couple film, as basic in its interest a s the genre' s critical potential, is its popular appea l a s romantic narrative. Film is, after all , a mass medium and, as such, its ability to give pleasure t o man y million s of moviegoer s i s a condition o f its continue d existence. Predictably , thi s imperativ e ofte n conflict s with th e unlikel y t\

2

Pygmalion

couple film's ability t o sustai n a socially critical perspective , Asquith' s Pygmalion, fo r example , succumbs to it s audience' s expectations b y de parting fro m th e play' s ending . Wher e Sha w ha s Eliz a wal k ou t o n Higgins, pointedl y foreclosing the possibilit y o f their romance , the film concludes with he r retur n to Higgins' s study, intimating, instead , tha t a romantic future i s available to them. With this upbeat ending, Pygmalion obscures its own critical perspective , licensin g viewer s to experienc e th e film as , finally, an update d varian t o f th e Cinderell a story . O f course , Pygmalion i s not uniqu e in this: Commercial pressure s push these mass entertainments toward a kind of narrative and emotional closure that is in tension with the social critical potential of the unlikely couple narrative. At the outset, one question tha t needs attending to is the legitimacy of treating Pygmalion a s an unlikely couple film at all. There are many indications tha t Higgin s an d Eliza' s relationshi p wil l no t en d i n romantic union.1 Fo r example, when Eliz a explain s to Higgin s he r nee d t o b e treated wit h "a little kindness," she is explicit tha t she does not want him "to mak e love " to her. 2 Also, by providing Eliz a wit h anothe r romantic possibility, the Freddy Eynsford Hill subplot can be seen as an attempt t o preclude romance between Higgins an d Eliza. Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons for treating Pygmalion a s an instance o f the genre . First, audience s clearly experience Higgin s and Eliza a s a couple, th e convention s o f romantic comedy havin g taugh t them that the more vigorous the denial, the more certain the ultimate tri umph of love. My Fair Lady (1964) , the Lerne r and Loewe musical based on th e play , explicitly yield s t o thes e conventiona l expectations . An d Pretty Woman (1990) , a fil m tha t present s itsel f a s a contemporar y Pygmalion, make s th e romanti c relationship between it s partners central to its narrative. 3 More tellingl y perhaps, the film's own title is an explicit reference t o th e myt h of Pygmalion, the sculpto r who fall s i n lov e with Galatea, a statu e o f hi s ow n creation . Bu t mos t important , treatin g Pygmalion a s an unlikely couple film illuminates both th e film—attribut ing significance t o aspects that might otherwise be passed over—and th e genre itself. I therefore take the film to be raising the question of whether Higgins an d Eliz a ca n become romanti c partners an d propos e t o sho w that a negative answer is central to an understanding of the narrative. Establishing Differenc e In th e unlikel y couple film, by definition, th e socia l composition o f th e featured coupl e presents a n obstacle t o th e formatio n of an ongoin g ro -

%»//*(!

t3

mantic relationshi p betwee n it s members. In man y such films, the part ners' love fo r on e anothe r i s unproblematic, opposition t o thei r unio n coming fro m others . The archetyp e her e i s Shakespeare's traged y Romeo and Juliet, i n which the two young lovers are doomed by murderous feuding between their families. In th e fou r films discussed in this first section of the book, class differ ence betwee n th e partner s i s a central obstacle t o th e formatio n of th e couple. These films depart fro m th e Romeo-and-Juliet premise, however, in their depiction of couples for whom this obstacle i s not simply socially imposed: In each of the four , at least on e partner views the other as completely unsuite d fo r romantic partnership becaus e of his or he r differin g class position. This device permits a subtler investigatio n o f class differ ence as a regulator of romantic attraction . These films begin b y establishing a disparity between their audiences ' perception o f the potentia l fo r romantic relationship betwee n th e tw o central characters and th e characters ' own estimation o f that possibility . Typically, the tension s produce d b y this disparit y ar e resolved throug h narrative strategies tha t alig n the characters' recognition o f their suitabil ity for one another with the filmgoers'. One suc h strategy has one or both partners make a discovery about the other tha t allows them t o get past th e obstacl e o f class. This revelation, the narrativ e pivot i n th e couple' s development , disrupts habit s o f social classification tha t block recognition o f the suitabilit y of the othe r a s love object. In th e simples t for m tha t suc h a narrativ e can take , the discover y is made that th e social position o f one of the two partners is different fro m what i t appear s to be. For example, in A Gay Deception (1935) , the mal e partner who i s working as a bellhop turn s out t o be a prince. Only afte r the femal e partne r admit s tha t sh e cares for hi m despit e hi s apparent working-class statu s does the prince reveal his identity, thereby legitimizing this no longer unlikely union.4 Coming to America (1988) also relies on the revelation of a previously concealed identity. In this film, however, the discovery that the mal e is really an African princ e in disguise threatens a couple founded on th e assumptio n that h e i s instead a lower-class black African. Nor it this narrative strategy limited to films in which the obsta cle t o lov e between th e tw o centra l character s i s class difference. Thus, Desert Hearts, a film in which two women appear to differ i n sexual orientation, turns on the discovery that one of them is mistaken about her sexuality. Onc e thi s erro r ha s bee n revealed , th e couple' s pat h ha s bee n cleared.5

24

PfgmsliaH

In films that invoke class difference, however , it is rare for there simply to be a mistake about a character's class. The mor e usual narrative involves a transformation of on e of the partners tha t eliminates th e clas s differenc e between them . Suc h narratives of class relocation can take one of two basic narrative forms. The first depicts the social ascent of one of the charac ters, wh o thereb y come s t o shar e th e highe r statu s of the other . Bot h Pygmalion an d Pretty Woman ar e examples. B y contrast, narrative s of descent—of which It Happened One Night (1934) an d White Palace (1990) ar e instances—feature character s wh o giv e u p thei r privileg e t o shar e th e lower-class positio n o f thei r partner . Whethe r th e trajector y i s up o r down, this strategy o f class repositioning allow s th e tw o characters t o finally recognize one another a s at least potential romanti c partners, some thing the audience has long since understood . One tak e on narratives of class transformation is to see in them th e de nial of the significanc e of class difference. This is the view, for example, of Benjamin DeMott, who argues that a great deal of American popular culture is directed a t obscuring the reality of class division in American society. Using the unlikel y couple films of John Hughe s (suc h as Some Kind of Wonderful [1987] ) as evidence, DeMott claims, "The messag e is unvarying: The surfac e o f things ma y look structured [b y class differences], and some member s of society ma y talk themselves into believing that escap e from fixed levels is impossible, bu t actuall y where we place ourselves is up to us ; whenever we wish to , we can upen d th e folk s o n th e hill." 6 Fo r DeMott, such films contribute t o Americans' failure to understand the social significance of class, presenting individuals ' class positions a s a matter of choice. Transformation narratives are thus but one example of the ten dency of popular film to deny that class represents a barrier to individua l aspiration, for one can simply transform one's class at will. DeMott's view calls attention t o the transformation narrative' s apparent erasure o f th e sociall y transgressiv e characte r of th e cross-clas s couple . Because, finally, the partner s n o longe r posses s differen t clas s identities , they no longer transgress norms regulating romantic attraction. But where DeMott condemns this narrativ e strategy as part of the general failure t o acknowledge th e clas s characte r o f American society , I argu e tha t th e transformation narrativ e is capable no t onl y of acknowledging th e realit y of class but o f indicting its effect o n people's lives. As we shall see, repre senting class identity as capable of radical transformation endows the un likely couple film with th e potentia l t o criticize basi c assumptions about class, suc h as , for example , tha t clas s status i s an expressio n o f geneti c

Pygmalian 2

5

capital. Admittedly, no t al l unlikely couple films exploit thi s critica l po tential. Indeed, I will show that som e struggle to contain it, thereby con tributing to the very erasure of class that DeMott sees as characteristic of popular cultur e as a whole.

Glass a s Obstacl e Pygmalion waste s n o time showin g that th e unlikelines s of the Higgins Eliza coupl e i s obvious t o th e tw o principals . Their differenc e i n class , and, less centrally, age, places each of them outside the other's circle of eligible romantic partners. This gentleman scholar' s interest i n a common flower girl extend s only a s far as her accent , which presents a n opportu nity for scientific investigation. In fact , Eliza's Cockney speech makes her particularly repulsive to him , for this linguist see s command of language as an alternative basis for social ranking. Ultimately, the film is critical of Higgins fo r regardin g other s solel y a s objects o f scientifi c curiosity, bu t that point of view emerges only gradually, When he first meets Eliz a in the portico of St. Paul's Church durin g a rainstorm, Higgins treat s her with utmos t contempt. To Eliza's insistence that sh e has as much right a s he t o shelte r there , Higgins respond s tha t her deplorable accen t belies her claim: A woman who utters such depressing and disgusting sounds has no right to be anywhere. Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the di vine gift o f articulate speech, and tha t your native language is the language of Shakespeare and Milton and the Bible; and don't si t there crooning like a bilious pigeon. (CollectedScreenplays, p . 231)

Although on e has to be wary of taking Higgins's sarcasm at face value, the film contains ample evidence that he views Eliza as less than fully human. For to him, language is sacred, a divine gift that Eliza desecrates whenever she opens her mouth. I shall have more to say about Higgins's view of class, but here I simply emphasize that both Eliza's class position an d her linguistic improprietie s make unlikely any sort of ongoing relationshi p with Higgins, much less a romantic one. Indeed, to Higgins class differences appea r as much a matter of linguistic skills as of economic privilege, Eliza's mangling of English so infuriates him that in an outburst followin g closely on the heel s of the one jus t quoted , th e upper-clas s linguis t view s th e subproletaria n Cockney wit h unbridle d contempt : "Yo u squashe d cabbag e leaf , yo u

26

PfgmsliaH

disgrace to the noble architecture of these columns, you incarnate insult to the English language" (CollectedScreenplays, p , 231). Once the weather has cleared and they are free t o go their separat e ways, the grea t gulf of class should preclude any further dealings . Soon after , however , Eliz a show s u p a t Higgins's doo r requestin g speech lessons. She is interested i n learning to speak properly s o that she can get a decent job and not have to sell flowers on the street. She explains all this to Colonel Pickering (Scot t Sunderland) , whom Higgin s has invited into his home: "I want to be a lady in a flower shop. But they won't take me unless I can talk more genteel. H e [Higgins ] said he could teach me" (Collected Screenplays, p. 235). Eliza wishes a more respectable form o f employment tha n sellin g flower s o n th e stree t t o passersby , an activit y problematic no t least for its associations with prostitution. (Henc e Eliza' s repeated clai m to being "a good girl.") But Eliz a i s barred from pursuin g her dream because of her accent. In class-consciou s England, the upperclass patron s o f a flower sho p expec t a salesperson t o confor m to thei r manners and not betray her vulgar origins. Eliza sees in Higgins the means to pursue her dreams. During the film's initial scene, Higgins boaste d to Pickering that his skills as a linguist were such that "in three months I could pass that girl off as a duchess at an ambassador's garde n party " (Collected Screenplays, p . 231). Now , taking t o heart Higgins's claim to be able to teach he r to speak correctly, Eliza ap pears at his doorstep, offering t o pay him to do so. Higgins i s himsel f take n wit h th e ide a o f teachin g Eliz a prope r English, but not simply to provide her with the skill s necessary to a suitable employment. His centra l motivatio n fo r undertaking what he terms an experimen t is scientific: If h e i s able to provid e Eliz a wit h th e skill s necessary to pass as a duchess, he will show the vacuity of the pretension that aristocrati c privileg e i s based on a n inheren t biological superiority . Eliza's masquerade, if successful, will show that anyone, even a lowly "guttersnipe," can be trained to act like an aristocrat, thereby establishing tha t class is a matter of training rather than breeding. At th e hear t of this experiment i s Higgins's desir e t o prov e th e superiorit y o f hi s scientifi c worldview—with its embrace of a hierarchy based on knowledge—to that of the nobility—with its faith in heredity. Although h e claims to be motivated by purely scientific considerations , Higgins i s also revealed to be moved by a desire t o demonstrate hi s own skill. Shoul d thi s experimen t prov e successfu l in "mak[ing] a duchess of this draggletailed guttersnipe" (Collected Screenplays, p. 236), i t will estab -

Pygmalion

2?

Photo 2.1 Hifgins towers over Eliza as Pickering watches

lish Higgle s a s a linguist withou t peer . As the y lay a wager o n th e out come of this experiment, Pickering assures Higgins that he will "say you're the greates t teache r aliv e if you make that good [i.e. , get Eliz a t o pass at the ambassador' s party]" (Collected Screenplayss p . 236). Eliza's desir e t o bette r hersel f an d Higgins' s interes t i n scientifically confirming his understanding o f class provide the rationale fo r continuing their relationship . Explicitly, the connectio n i s purely instrumental; Each has something t o gain fro m a n arrangemen t into which h e or sh e enter s for reasons o f his or he r own . Eliz a stand s t o benefi t fro m learnin g t o speak "proper" English, whereas Higgins has a chance to prove the valid ity of his own scientific theories. Although th e audience suspects (hopes?) that ther e i s more t o their desire s tha n the y acknowledge , th e fil m at tempts to foreclose the possibility o f a sexual or romantic relationship be tween them . Eliza, for her part , repeatedl y reject s what sh e takes t o b e sexua l ad vances. For example, when Higgins peremptorily direct s hi s housekeeper, Mrs. Pearc e (Jean Cadell) , t o burn all of Eliza's old clothes an d to "wrap

2 8 PfgmsliaH

her in brown paper till they [new clothes] come," Eliza protests he r virtue, rejecting an y possible sexua l implications i n Higgin s s orders: "You'r e n o gentleman, you're not, to talk of such things. I'm a good girl , I am; and I know what the likes of you are, I do" (Collected Screenplays, p. 236). The fil m als o addresse s thi s questio n o f sexua l motivatio n whe n Pickering ask s Higgins no t t o take advantage of Eliza's position, Higgin s is adamant that his interest i n Eliza is purely "scientific," and, in any case, he has no desire fo r romantic involvement, let alon e "that thing": "1 find that th e momen t a woman make s friends wit h me , she becomes jealous, exacting, and a confounded nuisance . S o I'm a confirmed bachelor, an d likely to remain so."7 We shall see that Higgins's attachment to his bachelorhood wil l become a n importan t facto r i n hi s relationship wit h Eliza . For the moment , we need onl y acknowledg e tha t Higgins' s misogynis t sentiments rul e out a sexual interest i n Eliza . (He late r confide s to hi s mother, "Oh, I can' t waste m y time with youn g women. They're al l such idiots anyhow,") 8 This scientific investigator clearly enjoys the company of fellow mal e investigators like Pickering muc h more than h e does tha t o f women,9 As a result, the audience is meant to be reassured that Higgins is not the familiar upper-class rake, seeking to take advantage of an innocent and impressionable young woman. Were ther e stil l lingerin g concer n abou t Higgins' s designs , the y are finally banished whe n Alfre d Doolittle , Eliza's father , appears. Doolittle, a dustman (garbag e collector) , assume s that Higgins' s interes t i n Eliz a is sexual and as her father comes to request the payment he is due. Although there ar e a number of important aspect s to this scene, what is significant here i s how Doolittle's misplace d assumptio n serve s t o establis h tha t Higgins's attitud e towar d Eliza is nonsexual, The ver y terms of Higgins an d Eliza's relationship , then , seem to pre clude thei r becomin g a couple. As in man y films employing the trope o f class ascent, however, there is an ironic structure to Pygmalion's plot : The very terms of their relationship tha t seem to rule out love require Higgins to transfor m Eliza int o a n eligible candidat e fo r romantic partnership. A serious obstacle to their union—the great barrier of class difference— will have been hurdled . Transforming Eliz a In showing that a common flower girl can acquire the skills and bearing of a duchess, Pygmalion subvert s class hierarchy by denying aristocratic priv -

Pygmalion

29

ilege a rational basis . To understan d ho w the film develops thi s critique , we need to consider carefully the process of Eliza's transformation. There are two scenes in which Eliza i s shown attempting t o "pass." The first, at an at home hosted by Higgins's mother, allows the audience to see both the distance Eliza has traveled under Higgins's tutelage an d how far she still has to go. The secon d is the reception a t the ambassador's where Eliza triumphs and Higgins win s his bet. I consider eac h in turn. The scen e o f Mrs. Higgins' s a t home , a comic masterpiece , follow s a montage in which Higgins i s shown struggling to teach Eliza. Despite he r progress, Eliza is not yet ready to pass as a duchess. Indeed, following this scene Pickering eve n suggest s tha t Higgin s admi t th e experimen t ha s failed. The mos t importan t guest s a t th e at-hom e ar e the Eynsfor d Hills , whose presence makes this scene a sort of replay of the film's opening en counter between Higgins an d Eliza—the Eynsford Hills, too, had sought shelter from th e rain in the portico o f St. Paul's. Their failure to recogniz e Eliza provides a specific marker of how far she has come, even as her con duct shows that she needs to accomplish a great deal more before Higgin s can win his bet. Eliza's transforme d appearance is one reason the Eynsfor d Hills do no t recognize he r fo r who sh e is (or was). Despite Higgins' s reminde r tha t they had all met previously, his concern that Eliz a will be remembered as the flower girl they ha d encountered earlie r is misplaced. She thoroughl y charms the entire family—especially Freddy, the doltish so n who becomes her admirer—eve n thoug h he r conversatio n actuall y betrays he r socia l class. When th e macabr e story o f her suspicio n tha t he r aun t was murdered threaten s t o giv e he r away , Higgins save s th e da y by assuring the guests tha t the expression s Eliz a use s are part o f "the ne w small talk" (Collected Screenplays, p . 250). The scen e end s with Mrs . Hil l regrettin g her inability to use such language. Although th e film is here satirizing th e attempt s o f the Englis h uppe r class to keep their speech abreast of the latest linguistic fads—specificall y their us e of vulgarity as a way of proving themselves au courant—the au dience gets its first look at the partially transformed Eliza. Her speec h has changed a great deal, but its artificiality and her slips make her still appear something les s than a real lady. Higgins remain s undeterred, however, and decides tha t h e wil l take Eliz a t o a receptio n a t th e Transylvanian Embassy to which h e has been invited . This will b e the tru e tes t of the experiment.

30

PfgmsliaH

To ready Eliza, Higgins subjects her to another round of brutal instruction, again presente d i n montage . The tw o montage sequence s togethe r serve t o demonstrate ho w much training ha s gone int o refinin g Eliza , a process that ha s exhausted both Higgins an d his pupil. And thei r exhaustion shows us the lengths that Higgins is willing to go to confirm his views. By the time of the reception a t the Transylvanian Embassy, Higgins has managed t o complet e Eliza' s transformation . Physically, she has com e a long way from th e dirty young woman first encountered in the portico o f St. Paul's. With th e ai d of a team of beauticians and dressmakers , Eliza now possesses a truly aristocratic appearance . The scen e begins with a n extended sequenc e in which, as she ascends the embass y staircase, her re gal bearing creates a sensation (see Photo 2.2). There follow a number of incidents detailing Eliza's triumph. The mos t humorous involves a former studen t o f Higgins's, Aristide Karpathy, 10 a sort o f Higgins ru n amok , who use s his skill s as a linguist fo r cras s selfaggrandizement. Althoug h th e fil m drop s th e play' s suggestio n tha t Karpathy actuall y blackmails people wh o wish t o concea l their humble origins, h e remains a vulgarian. The experimen t receives its most serious test when he is asked to determine Eliza's real origins. Despite som e anxiou s moments, Karpathy does no t penetrat e th e fa cade that Higgins has created for Eliza. After talking with her , Karpathy proclaims he r t o b e a fake—she is , he announces , reall y a Hungaria n royal. Whe n Higgin s ask s whethe r h e trie d speakin g t o Eliz a i n Hungarian, this nemesis reveals himself to be a fool for not trusting what he hears: I did. She was very clever. She said, "Please speak to me in English: I do not understand French. " French! Sh e pretends no t t o kno w the differenc e be tween Hungaria n an d French . Nonsense : sh e know s both . . . . She' s a princess. {CollectedScreenplays, p . 256)

Even when Higgins reveals the trut h abou t Eliza—tha t sh e is "an ordinary London girl out o f the gutte r an d taught t o spea k by an expert"— neither Karpathy , the scientis t les s interested i n trut h tha n i n financial gain, nor the hostess, the genuine aristocrat, believes him. The trut h cannot be discerned by people such as these, taken in as they are by Eliza. If the receptio n scen e emphasizes Eliza's linguistic transformation , her physical metamorphosis, which has made her an appropriate object of desire fo r the assemble d mal e aristocrats , is equally celebrated. Here , then , the film recalls the stor y of Cinderella, another dirt y young woman who

Pygmalion

st

Photo 2. 2 Eliz a enter s the bal l unde r th e gaz e o f Hi<j§in s an d Pickerin g

achieves great success at a ball. Central t o both narrative s is a transformation i n appearanc e tha t reveal s the radian t young woman beneat h th e grime. But if Cinderella i s thereby restored to her rightful social position, Eliza's appropriate social location ha s been thrown into question. Higgins's experiment is successful. Eliz a has taken in the ball-goers. H e has proved himsel f the master linguist an d sh e ha s become a n alluring young woman. It seem s that all that remains to complete the fair y tal e is for thi s obtuse Prince Charming to fall in love with his Cinderella , Before considerin g the obstacle s that remai n in th e way of this story book ending, we need to reflect on what Eliza's successfu l passin g has accomplished. Fro m a narrative point o f view, a significant barrier to th e formation o f this unlikely couple has been removed. Eliza i s now an at tractive woman whose transformed bearing makes her a socially appropri ate companion for Higgins. Her class background no longer precludes her from bein g seen by Higgins a s a possible romantic partner. The future , if any, of their relationship i s now on the agenda . At th e sam e time, Eliza's triumph vindicates Higgins's criticis m o f the castelike characte r o f England' s clas s structure . On e justificatio n fo r

12

PfgmsliaH

aristocratic privileg e alleges that clas s differences ar e simply a reflection o f natural distinctions amon g human beings. Rathe r than treatin g clas s as a specifically socia l phenomenon , thi s vie w grounds hierarch y i n biology , making i t difficul t t o se e ho w th e clas s structur e o f societ y coul d b e changed, The stor y o f Eliza's transformatio n and successfu l passin g denie s thi s innatist view , arguing instead tha t clas s differences ar e the resul t o f th e unequal acces s people hav e t o variou s social goods . Although dres s and hygiene are shown to play a role in the creation of class difference, the film presents languag e and , mor e generally, educatio n a s the mos t importan t factors in constituting clas s identity. In Pygmalion's England , class dialect is foremost among the means used to registe r an d enforce elit e cultural dominance. Fo r wealthy parvenus to achieve a social statu s commensurat e with thei r economi c power , the y must master elite speech patterns. Higgins, the scientific researcher, is also a teacher who can offer hi s status-anxious clients the linguisti c makeove r they require, The film, and Shaw's play on which it is based, indict innatis t defenses of class privilege, emphasizing instead the fundamental roles in individual development o f education an d training . The work s are concerned no t so much wit h th e economi c determinants o f clas s a s with wha t migh t b e called its moral dimensions. Viewed fro m above , the lowe r orders behave in ways the upper classes find inappropriate, i f not reprehensible . Fo r example, respectable youn g women d o no t ear n thei r livin g b y accostin g strangers in the streets . Eliza i s a flower girl, however, not through a choice of her own, but be cause she lacks the linguisti c polis h require d o f a shop assistant . A s be comes clear when he r fathe r appears , she has had n o chance of receiving the sor t o f parenting o r education tha t would hav e mad e her capabl e of holding such a position. B y giving her the sort of instruction sh e ought to have received an d tha t societ y shoul d hav e ensured her , Higgins offer s Eliza a sort of alternate parenting. 11 And onc e adequatel y instructed, not only is she fit for respectable employment , but he r bearing prove s her a t least the equal of those who view themselves as her betters. The film thus demonstrates that society itself produces the deficits that keep people like Eliza in subjection. Higgins s experiment ha s proved tha t even a "guttersnipe" ca n learn t o pass as an aristocrat. We have been shown that in a highly stratified soci ety those who occupy superior social positions d o so not so much as a result of superior moral virtue, but simply because the circumstances of their

%»//*(! 3

3

birth guarante e the m th e necessar y socialization . T o cur e th e ill s o f poverty, the fil m implies , th e poo r requir e th e sor t o f instruction tha t Higgins provides Eliza. Rather than obscurin g the natur e of class division, as DeMott would have it , this ascen t narrativ e argues the realit y an d hurtfulnes s o f class. If, wit h appropriat e trainin g an d grooming , Eliz a i s mad e t o pas s fo r royalty, then clas s differences mus t be th e resul t of society's differentia l treatment o f huma n beings, no t a reflectio n o f inheren t difference s among them . A s a result, th e "vices " associate d wit h povert y d o no t show tha t th e poo r ar e destined t o b e worse tha n th e rich—i n fact , Alfred Doolittle , the play' s exampl e of a character wh o lacks the stan dard moral virtues, is also its only creative moralist—but that the y have been stunte d b y a denial o f social resources. If societ y committe d thos e resources i n th e wa y that Higgin s commit s hi s energies t o Eliza , th e poor would be "elevated," that is , their behavior would be indistinguish able from tha t of the rich . Elizas transformation , then, has not onl y articulated a critique o f aristocratic self-understanding, i t has cleared the way for a romantic relationship between Eliz a an d Higgins. Th e reason s that thi s romanc e fail s t o develop lie in Higgins's character and approach to life ,

The Ethics of Bachelorhood Instead of bringing Higgins close r to Eliza, the success of his experiment drives them apart . Ignored b y Higgins an d Pickering at the very moment of her triumph , Eliza flees fro m them . Higgin s track s her dow n a t his mother's home , but th e attempte d reconciliatio n fail s an d Eliza bids him goodbye onc e more. Unlike the play , the film ends with a short scen e in which Eliz a return s to Higgins' s laboratory . The significanc e o f this de parture from Shaw' s text is considered in the nex t section. Here, I am interested i n how gender overtakes class as the principal obstacle to romantic union. That a particular variant of the traditional male gender role , the figure of the confirmed bachelor, creates a new and more profound barrier to romance becomes clear once Eliza's transformation has mooted th e issue of class. Eliza ha s passed as a duchess an d Higgins ha s won his bet, yet his condescension persists . Higgins' s continue d refusa l t o trea t Eliz a a s an equal suggests that that condescension has had multiple determinants. Higgins's dismissive attitude toward Eliza first becomes an issue as a result o f the discussio n that take s place between hi m an d Pickerin g whe n

14

PfgmsliaH

the thre e retur n t o Wimpole Stree t immediatel y afte r th e reception . Ecstatic that Eliza has passed as an aristocrat, the tw o men converse as if Eliza hersel f played n o part i n th e succes s of their experiment . Higgins tells Pickering how happy he is that the entire enterprise is over, for it has come to weigh him down: Thank God it's over.... It was interesting enough at first, while we were at the phonetics; but after tha t I got deadly sick of it.... It was a silly notion: the whole thing has been a bore.... I tel l you, Pickering, never agai n for me. No more artificia l duchesses . The whol e thing has been simpl e purgatory. (Collected Screenplays, p. 257-258) What i s startling abou t thes e comment s is not tha t Higgins expresses such negativ e feeling s about th e experiment , but tha t h e speaks without acknowledging that Eliza is in the roo m an d might b e hurt b y his com ments. The tw o confirmed bachelor s talk as if alone, entirely ignoring th e young woman . Suc h a n erasur e o f presenc e occur s amon g th e ver y wealthy, who ar e as accustomed to thei r domesti c servant s as they are to their furniture an d often treat them similarly. Indeed, during the course of her instruction , Eliz a become s somethin g o f a domestic i n Higgins' s household. Earl y in th e film, Higgins denie s that Eliz a has an y feeling s about which he needs t o be concerned (Collected Screenplays, p . 237), bu t that was before h e ha d gotte n t o kno w her. Now, eve n afte r al l thos e months of arduous instruction, she remains for him an object on which to exercise his talents and a servant to be ordered about. Eliza i s so outraged a t being ignore d precisel y at thi s momen t o f tri umph tha t whe n Higgin s ask s wher e his slipper s ar e she hurl s them a t him. Caugh t totall y of f guard, Higgins ingenuousl y asks if anything is wrong. ELIZA [breathless] : Nothing wrong'—with you. I've won your bet for yo u haven't I? That's enough for you. J don't matter , I sup pose. HIGGINS: You won my bet! You! Presumptuous insect! /won it . (Collected Screenplays, p. 258) Higgins's respons e reveal s tha t flaw in his characte r tha t doom s any prospect o f romance and that th e film will now explore. Eliza react s angrily to Higgins's relie f that their lessons are ended, accusing him of overlooking her . But what Higgins respond s to is not that accusatio n but her

Pygmalionm

35

assumption tha t sh e had won th e be t fo r him . H e i s irked tha t Eliz a claims some responsibility fo r the victory, for this challenges his assumption tha t his skills as a linguist an d scientist hav e alone brought i t about . As a result, he is deaf to he r complaint tha t h e shows no concern for her fate. Instea d o f reacting with empathy , Higgins narcissisticall y upbraids Eliza fo r presumin g t o thin k o f hersel f a s a ful l participan t i n th e experiment. This exchange illustrates Higgins's inability to acknowledg e Eliz a a s a human being whose needs and desires are as worthy of respect as his own. His self-conceptio n a s bachelor ma n o f science legitimates a narcissism that denie s that other people, Eliz a mos t centrally, are both importan t t o him and have legitimate claims on him. But what of Higgins's belie f that the credi t fo r the victory is his alone? Surely, Higgins' s superio r expertis e justifie s hi s authorit y a s Eliza' s teacher, but she too has made important contributions to the experiment's success. By hogging th e victor y for himself , Higgins/Pygmalio n reduce s his Galatea to inert matter, a cipher who requires the form-givin g power of his own knowledge and skills, thus reflecting his acceptance of a hierarchy based on these qualities rather than on blood. Of course, for Higgins's teaching t o have had any effect a t all, Eliza has had to be a willing and active participant i n the experiment. Higgins an d Pickering themselves are effusive i n their praise of Eliza's talen t and effor t when talking to Mrs. Higgins prio r to her at home. Eac h of them speaks over th e othe r i n hi s enthusiasm to enumerat e Elizas accomplishments . Higgins, for example, praises Eliza's "most extraordinary quickness of ear," which allows her to pick up accents that "it took me years to get hold of, " and Pickerin g assure s Mrs, Higgins that "tha t gir l is a genius" who "can play th e pian o quit e beautifully" (Collected Screenplays, p . 252), A t thi s point, both Higgin s an d Pickering ar e clear about Eliza' s ow n contribu tion t o her progress. Both se e her as a talented an d eager student, able to accomplish th e task s that the y se t he r becaus e of he r abilitie s a s well as their guidance . Just a s important'—although neithe r recognize s it—i s Eliza's desire to please them, to do what they ask to the best of her ability because it is they who ask. This understanding of Eliza as equal partner to the experimen t is forgotten afte r th e episod e a t th e embass y because it challenges thes e males ' fait h i n a socia l hierarch y base d o n superio r knowledge,12 Higgins's refusa l t o conced e Eliza' s autonom y continues throughou t their interactio n afte r returnin g fro m th e ambassador's . When sh e cries

i6

Pygmalion

out t o him fo r some acknowledgment that h e has developed affectio n fo r her, Higgins nitpicks once more, Eliza reproache s him: "You don't care . I know you don' t care . You wouldn't car e i f I wa s dead. I'm nothin g t o you—not s o much a s them slippers " (Collected Screenplays, p . 259). To which Higgins, ever ready to reassert his linguistic an d epistemic superiority b y reminding Eliz a o f her deficiencies , snaps , "Those slippers. " Higgins here chooses t o deflect attentio n fro m Eliza' s concerns , reacting instead t o an incidental lapse. But this callous attempt t o contain her plea for mutualit y misfires—this Galatea's transformation has been more complete that Higgins realizes . The issu e of the exten t t o which Eliz a i s Higgins's creation is under scored by the iron y of Shaw's title. Ovid's stor y "Pygmalion an d Galatea " concerns a great sculptor who fall s so deeply in love with the statue he has created that he asks the gods to give it life. 13 The intensit y of Pygmalion's love persuades the god s t o gran t hi s request. One interpretatio n o f thi s myth would have it that men desire women who are simple projections of their ow n desires, lackin g independent being . The cultura l role o f this myth, o n suc h a reading, i s to teac h tha t women nee d t o accommodat e themselves to this economy of male desire. The film' s us e of the Pygmalio n myth , however , is ironic, fo r i t in vokes the myt h only to dispe l it. Higgin s ma y conceive of himself as a latter-day Pygmalion , shapin g a mer e "block" int o a lady—indeed, he appropriates th e powe r o f th e god s a s well, claimin g responsibilit y fo r giving he r a more full y huma n life—but th e fil m mock s these preten sions. In particular, Higgins's failur e t o acknowledg e the rol e that Eliz a has played in her own transformation diminishes him. Like Pygmalion , Higgins ca n only see the transforme d Eliza as his own creation, the ob ject o f his intellectualized desire . But unlik e Galatea, Eliz a wa s already human prior to her encounter with he r artist-teacher, eve n if, as he continually remind s her , onl y a lowl y flowe r girl . The satisfactio n o f Higgins's masculinist desire is threatened by this woman's insistence on both her power and her need for reciprocity. A further irony introduced by the film's title is that although Higgins and Pygmalion are both master s of their professions , Pygmalion's distinction i s the intensity of his love. But this is precisely what Higgins canno t acknowledge abou t himself : that h e reall y cares for Eliza . To d o s o would be t o admit that he is more than the dispassionate scientific investigator and that his fulfilment depend s on more than his own efforts. Higgins's inability to concede Eliza's significance for him thwarts the possibility of their love.

%»//*(!

3?

Inevitably, Higgins's refosal alter s our attitude towar d him. Where previously we might hav e been willin g to discoun t hi s quirk y manner and dismissive style , we now see this brilliant an d witty linguist i n a harsher light. Becaus e we admir e Elizas achievements , we faul t Higgin s fo r hi s failure to acknowledge them. By the en d of this sequence, the audienc e is firmly on Eliza's side as she faces up to her former mentor. Their final confrontation, which takes place on the morning after Eliz a has bolted fro m Higgins' s laboratory, probes more deeply into the ethica l failing a t th e roo t o f his character. Desperately searchin g for Eliza , wh o has fled to hi s mother's hom e for help, Higgins find s he r ther e but the n only continues to denigrate her achievements. For example, after Eliz a has angered hi m b y putting o n he r best manner s in a way that parodie s her performance a t the a t home, he rebukes his mother fo r taking up Eliza' s cause: Let her speak for herself. There isn't an idea that I haven't put into her head. I tel l you I hav e create d thi s thin g out o f the squashe d cabbag e leave s of Covent Garden ; an d no w sh e pretend s t o pla y th e fin e lad y wit h me . (Collected Screenplays, p . 267} Eliza respond s t o thi s diatrib e b y explaining tha t sh e ha s a differen t view of things. Turning to Colonel Pickering , Eliz a coolly and calmly tells him tha t he was responsibl e fo r teaching he r goo d manners , which ar e what really count. When Pickering remind s her that Higgins was the one who taugh t he r t o speak , Eliz a give s he r own , deflationary account of Higgins's contribution t o he r education—and, along with it , his faith i n knowledge as justifying hierarchy: It was just like learning to dance in the fashionable way: there was nothing more tha n tha t i n it . Bu t d o yo u kno w wha t bega n m y rea l education?... Your calling me Miss Doolittle that day when I first came to Wimpole Street. That was the beginning of self-respect for me. You see, the difference betwee n a lady and a flowergirl is not ho w sh e behaves, it's how she's treated. I know I sha E always be a flowergirl to Professor Higgins , because he always treats me as a flowergirl, and always will.... But I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady, and always will, (Collected Screenplays, pp . 267-268) The distinction tha t Eliza makes here is both subtle and far-reaching. She sees Higgins' s contributio n t o he r educatio n a s essentially technical , equipping her wit h form s of conduc t necessar y to actin g the lady .

i8

Pygmalion

Pickering, o n th e othe r hand , ha s taugh t he r a very different lesson , namely to see herself as someone as worthy of respect as anyone else. This insight is not one that can be conveyed as one teaches a skill, but it is central to her transformation into a lady. For this reason, Eliza values it more highly. Eliza's ability to articulat e such a distinction prove s her independence , for no w she can think things ou t fo r herself. She does not se e language as sacred, as does Higgins, but a s simply one skill among others that she has acquired in learning to pass as a duchess. What is sacred to her is her own self-respect, somethin g that Higgin s i s unable to foster . Becaus e he con tinues to trea t he r a s the grim y Cockney flower girl, tha t is , with con tempt, Eliza will not accept a relationship with him on those terms . Now, Higgins protest s tha t Eliz a doe s no t understand hi m a t all. She does not see why, from hi s point of view, the issue is not having the appro priate sort of manners, for these are, he agrees, just a set of customs that can be taught. What is important, accordin g to Higgins, is treating everyone in the same way. HIGGINS: My manners are exactly the same as Colonel Pickering's . ELIZA: That's no t true . H e treats a flowergir l a s i f sh e wer e a duchess. HIGGINS: And I trea t a duchess a s if she was a flowergirl. The question i s not whether I treat you rudely, but whether yo u ever heard m e trea t anyon e els e better . (Collected Screenplays, pp . 269-270) Thus, beneath Higgins's facile egalitarianis m is an attitude o f nearly universal contempt . Thi s linguis t approache s other s a s if they were mere bearers of accents to be studied, objects for scientific investigation. He can treat all equally because he treats everyone as inferior to himself. 14 His at tainments a s the man o f science authorize hi s leveling disdain fo r other s for thei r lack of scientific knowledge . This exchange establishes that the real obstacle to the Higgins-Eliza couple is Higgins's bachelorhood, a term that he uses to characterize his way of being-in-the-world and that I adopt to signify the ethic of conduct exem plified by his relationship with Eliza. A bachelor in this sense is a man committed to living free of significant intimate relationships. Although Higgin s has repeatedly an d proudly asserted hi s allegiance to this form o f life, only now does the audience understand how impoverishing a choice this is.

Pygmalionm

39

By using the ter m "bachelorhood" to characterize Higgin s s way of life, I intend to connect the concerns of this film with what Stanley Cavell has called the problem of skepticism. For Cavell, the skeptic is one who denies the realit y of others, who fail s t o acknowledg e tha t thei r humanit y is as significant as one's own. Cavell sees this as a perennial human temptation, one that philosophy continually seeks to keep at bay. He als o identifies its overcoming as a crucial concern of the Hollywood comedie s of remarriage that form th e subject of his study, Pursuits ofHappiness.ls Higgins's wa y of being-in-the-world, his bachelorhood, i s related t o what Cavell terms skepticism because Higgins canno t full y credi t th e re ality of other human beings. This authorizes hi s contempt an d his reduction o f others to objects for his scientific investigation. And i t also keeps him fro m acknowledgin g that h e has so come t o car e for Eliza, that hi s happiness depends on his deepening their connection . Pygmalion doe s not present this failure t o acknowledg e others a s a human failing, as Cavelfs analysis would have it, but a s a specifically masculine one. 16 Hence, th e aptnes s of the term "bachelorhood. " Accordin g t o the film, Higgins's bachelorhood enact s the masculinist fantasy tha t h e is complete and self-sufficient, no t a finite human being with needs and desires that only others can satisfy . This temptation t o den y the implications o f our finitude, the vulnerability o f our well-bein g t o factor s beyond ou r control , ha s motivate d philosophers a t least a s far back as Plato in hi s Symposium. That dialogue portrays th e step s b y which huma n beings ma y transcend thei r attach ment to th e merel y finite and com e to love only the infinite—fo r Plato , the For m o f the Beautiful . Pygmalion counter s tha t t o attemp t t o she d one's attachment to the finite is to deny the work of weaving other human beings an d thei r autonomou s project s int o th e fabri c of ou r ow n fulfillment. Being in a couple, being i n love , is only possible fo r those wh o admi t their nee d for another, but this is an admission Higgins canno t make, that he uses his bachelorhood—and hi s commitment t o science—to forestall. The film shows that Higgins's vaunte d self-sufficiency i s really an evasion of his own finitude. He i s unwilling, unable to admi t his dependence o n Eliza, t o admit that he , like all of us, needs other people, tha t his happi ness depends on others . Thus, when Higgins tell s Eliz a that "she will relapse into the gutter in three weeks without me at her elbow" (Collected Screenplays, p . 268), Eliz a insists, "I can do without you . Don't think I can't." Higgins counters , has

40

PfgmsliaH

she ever asked herself whether h e can do without her, implying that he is, indeed, vulnerable, that h e really does nee d her. But Eliza's firm respons e that he will have to learn to do without he r pushes Higgins int o retreat : I can do without anybody. I have rny own soul: rny own spark of divine fire. But I shal l mis s you, Eliza. I confes s tha t humbl y an d gratefully. I hav e grown accustomed t o your voice and appearance. 1 like them, rather,17

He will miss Eliza, but h e does not reall y need her. As a man of science, he avers , "Once for all , understan d tha t I g o m y way and d o m y work without caring twopence what happens to either of us." Hardly the sort of reassurance that Eliza has asked for and needs, but what his subordination of subjectivity to the demands of scientific investigation requires. Eliza, on the other hand, presents her commitment to their experiment in ver y different terms . Fo r her , i t wa s all about he r relationshi p wit h Higgins: I want a little kindness. I know I'm only a common ignorant girl; but I'm not dirt unde r your feet. What I done—what I di d was not for the dresses and the taxis: but because we were pleasant together and I come—came—to care for you; and not forgettin g th e difference s betwee n u s and not wanting you to make love to me, but more friendly like. 18

The differenc e betwee n thei r motivation s coul d no t b e clearer: Higgin s uses his commitment to science to support hi s sense of superiority, which allows him to avoid human entanglement, but Eliza sticks with the experiment because she cares for him and wants to make him happy. Higgins's equivocal response to Eliza s confessio n emphasizes hi s diffi culty i n admittin g emotion . Initially , h e reciprocates , "O f course , Eliza , that's exactly how I feel. " But afte r a pause, he adds, "and how Pickering feels," once again distancing himself from hi s attachment t o her. Then, as if exasperated b y her nee d t o kno w what h e feels , h e concludes, "Eliza , you're a fool!"19 As he passes from personal avowal to evasive generality to, finally, angry displacement , Higgin s i s a ma n wh o canno t accep t th e power of his own feelings to move him. The final break between Higgins and Eliza occur s when she begins to appreciate that she now has more resources in her situation tha n she previously understood. The first inkling of this fact comes after sh e threatens to marry Freddy and Higgins respond s with anger : "Woman: do you not understand tha t I hav e mad e yo u a consor t fo r a king? " (Collected Screenplays, p . 270). As the conversatio n progresses, Eliza issues a second

Pygmalian 4

1

threat, this tim e to us e the ver y skill that sh e has acquire d as a result of Higgins's teaching : her ability to speak properly. She can ally herself with Karpathy, Eliza announces triumphantly: Now I know how to deal with you. What a fool I was not to think of it before! You can't take away the knowledg e you gave me. You said I had a finer ear than you. And I can be civil and kind to people, which is more than you can! (CollectedScreenplays, p , 270)

With Higgins's reactio n t o this threat, Eliza finally understands that she can, in fact , liv e independentl y o f Higgins. This developmen t parallel s that of Ibsen's Nora, another woman who realizes that she can live newly glimpsed possibilities only by rejecting the man who stifles her. In A Doll's House b y Henrik Ibsen— a playwrigh t muc h admired by Shaw—a woman face s th e realizatio n tha t her marriag e has infantilize d her, made her into a doll. Through her growing disillusionment with her husband, Helmer, Nora comes to se e that t o become th e woma n she is, she needs to separat e from him . The pla y ends literall y with a bang, as Nora slams the door on her home and her marriage. 20 In a similar way, Eliza ha s discovere d tha t sh e mus t separat e fro m Higgins to live her own life. His refusal t o accord her the respect she now realizes she deserves means that she too must slam the door on a relationship tha t require s her subordination . Becaus e th e newl y transformed woman at the en d of Pygmalion require s more than her male mentor can give her, she must leave him so she can lead the lif e tha t he has equipped her to live. Higgins is not the hypocrit e that Helme r is, yet Eliza can no more liv e under hi s freel y acknowledge d rnasculinis t regim e than Nor a can under Helmer s unavowed practice of domination. For this reason, Eliza mus t remain without a partner a t the en d of the film. Despite Shaw' s attemp t t o insinuat e Freddy a s a plausible lover (something the film wisely drops), there is no male character equal to the challenge of being Eliza's partner. Pygmalion's me n are either bachelors or dolts, so that Eliz a i s left withou t th e possibilit y o f genuine intimacy. 21 Contributing t o he r desperatio n i s her awarenes s that havin g become a woman for whom no man is a suitable partner, at least in the world of this film, she also has no social location to which to return. Unlike Nora, however, Eliza is now a woman of significant accomplishment. Sh e realize s that she can use the linguistic skills that Higgins has given her—as well as her own talent—to train others to speak proper English . As the figure of Karpathy suggests, thi s i s a prestigious an d lucrativ e profession. So even

42

PfgmsliaH

though Higgin s s intervention i n he r lif e ha s compelled Eliz a t o giv e up whatever aspiration s a Cockney flower girl migh t hav e had, sh e is no t bereft. Sh e has become a professional woman, with all the advantages and disadvantages of that newly created social role. In thi s sequence, then, Pygmalion give s a bleak assessment of the situation of feminist women. England's me n are simply not fit partners for independent wome n like Eliza . The Higginse s o f this world , comfortably constrained b y their own bachelorhood, ar e not abl e to give such women the respec t the y deserve, an d the Freddies, despit e thei r blin d adoration , lack the substance that would make them interesting. The film concludes that gender roles so constituted offe r n o hope for genuinely reciprocal ro mantic relationships. Heterosexual lov e can find a place in the world only if men, too, are changed by feminism. On the other hand, the film offers women the possibility of striking out on their own. The cultura l possibilities create d by feminism allo w women to secur e thei r ow n fortune s with skill s acquire d throug h education . Although thi s may not be everything, the film shows us that it is also not nothing. As she walks out on Higgins, Eliza knows that she can live a life of possibilities unimaginabl e to th e flower girl Higgins first encountered in the portico of St. Paul's.

The Problem of an Ending I conclude this discussion of Pygmalion wit h a brief consideration o f how its final scene undercuts the critiqu e o f masculinism that follow s Eliza's triumph a t the ball. After Eliz a walks out on him a t his mother' s home , Higgins retreats to his laboratory and listens wistfully to his recordings of Eliza's voice. We see that Higgins misses her. Unbeknownst to him, Eliza enters, turn s off the recording , and continue s th e dialogu e i n he r own voice. When Higgins realize s that she is back, his expression changes and once again assuming his posture of superiority, he orders her to fetc h hi s slippers. Eliz a ha s returned an d apparentl y accepte d Higgins' s term s for continuing their relationship.22 This breezy negation of the film's sustained critique of bachelorhood i s deeply problematic. Simpl y providing an endin g tha t supposedl y allow s the audienc e to leav e the theate r wit h thei r fantasie s fulfille d i s an aes thetic as well as an ethical lapse. This film must show that the weighty issues raised by the crisi s between Eliza an d Higgins hav e at least been re spected. Eliza' s unmotivate d acceptanc e o f Higgins' s terms , a plo t

%»//*(! 4

1

maneuver Sha w repeatedly denounced , undercut s her , and Pygmalion's, point of view, Pygmalion?, filmmakers impute t o thei r audience s so powerful a desire for romance between Higgin s and Eliza tha t their breaku p cannot be allowed. And perhaps they are right: To the average filmgoer, Shaw s liberatory yet depressing message might have seemed out of tune with what had promised t o be merely an amusing story. But satisfyin g thi s desire means dismissing the narrative's claims about heterosexual relationships: tha t in dependent wome n cannot accep t the assumptio n of justified mal e dominance. Pygmalion thu s distorts it s own message. Eve n a s the fil m presse s its critique of class privilege, it retreats from it s demonstration o f the de structiveness of traditional rnasculinis t postures. The argumen t of this chapter has been that Pygmalion exemplifie s two of the central themes of this study of the unlikely couple film. First, I have established tha t this narrative of transgressive love has made an important set of criticisms of oppressive social structures. By interrogating bot h class and gender relationships, Pygmalion illustrates th e critical bite available to the figure of the unlikely couple. In its final submission to cliche', however, the film also shows how the pressure to satisf y th e expectations o f a mass audience ca n compromise bot h th e aestheti c an d the mora l integrit y o f this genre of filmmaking.

Notes 1. Most o f th e criticis m o f Shaw' s pla y concerns th e questio n o f whethe r Higgins an d Eliz a wil l hav e a romanti c relationship . I n Spain's Daughters: Dramatic and Narrative Constructions of Gender (An n Arbor : Universit y o f Michigan Press , 1991) , J. Elle n Gaino r focuse s o n gende r issue s raised by the play. Unfortunately, he r readin g o f th e pla y as a variant of th e fair y tal e "Sno w White" gives Pygmalion a much more sinister atmospher e tha n i s warranted, In addition, she fails to interrogate the play's view of class. 2. Neither th e screenpla y nor the text of the play give an accurate transcript of the film. Parenthetical citation s refe r t o the text of the screenpla y of Pygmalion i n The Collected Screenplays of Bernard Shaiu, Bernar d F . Dukore , ed . (Athens : University o f Georgia Press , 1980) . I hav e amended m y quotations fro m th e screenplay to bring them into accordanc e with the actua l film. Citations t o lines in the film that d o not appea r i n the publishe d screenpla y are footnoted. In th e present case , th e lin e i s actuall y fro m th e play : Se e George Bernar d Shaw , Pygmalion (London: Penguin Books, 1957), p. 130 . 3.1 discuss Pretty Woman an d its relationship to Pygmalion i n Chapter 4 .

44

Pygmalion

4, A Gay Deception I s unusual because the fina l coupl e is a cross-class one. In this sense, the discovery is less that the couple is not unlikely than that the femal e partner is not a superficial gold digger , thereby establishing her as a worthy candidate for social elevation. 5.1 discuss Desert Hearts in Chapter 10. 6. Benjamin DeMott , The Imperial Middle: Why Americans Cannot Think Straight About Class (New York William Morro w and Co., 1990), p. 66, 7. These lines actuall y reverse th e clai m o f the play , where Higgin s blames himself for becoming "selfish an d tyrannical." See Shaw, Pygmalion, pp . 49—50. 8. The firs t sentenc e is on page 247 of the screenplay . The secon d sentenc e is an addition to it. 9. Higgins's dormant sexualit y provides a possible narrativ e avenue that th e film eschews, In comedie s such as Bringing Uf Bai>y (1938), the possibilit y o f a woman awakenin g a man's sexuality balances the male' s ability to provide some thing for the woman. It is also possible that Higgins's latent homosexuality would make hi m prefe r Pickerin g a s a partner, although thi s is another possibility no t envisioned by the film. 10. The film changes this character's name. In the Collected Screenplays, Dukore suggests that it is to make him sound more Hungarian. In the play, he is referred to as "Nepommuck," a Czech name. 11. Shaw's discomfort at suggestions of romance between Eliza and Higgins is due, in part, to a desire to avoid having this parenting relationship be seen as sexual, 12. The fil m her e presents the relatio n o f teacher to studen t as a noncoercive form o f power. For a fuller discussio n of power in this context, see my The Forms of Power; From Domination to Transformation (Philadelphia : Templ e Universit y Press, 1990). 13. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Rolf e Humphries , tr . (Blooraington : Indian a University Press, 1955), pp. 241-243. 14. Actually, Higgins doe s not treat Pickering with the same contempt he bestows on others , suc h as Mrs. Hill . This is because Pickering , lik e Higgins, i s a man o f science. Higgins's unself-conscious elitism is based on his elevated view of science, 15. Stanley Cavell, Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). 16. "Masculine" in thi s context shoul d not b e read a s an essentialist reference to biological maleness . I intend it to refer to a gender role that is usually enacted by men . In Contesting Tears: The Hollywood Melodrama of the Unknown Woman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1996) , Cavell does explor e th e issu e of skepticism as gendered. 17. Although no t i n th e screenplay , this speech , as well as the next , are taken directly from th e play , with some omissions. Se e Shaw, Pygmalion, p . 127 . 18. Shaw, Pygmalion, p. 130 .

Pygmalian

45

19. Shaw, Pygmalion, p. 131. 20. Cavell uses Ibsen's A Doll's Home, Michael Meyer , tr. (London: Methuen, 1985) t o introduce th e idea of the comedy of remarriage in Pursuits of Happiness, 21. In thi s respect , Pygmalion resemble s th e films that Cavel l call s "melodra mas of the unknown woman," the subjec t of Contesting Tears. 22. In th e final analysis, it remains unclear whether th e two of them wil l ever have a full romanti c relationship. It appear s that Higgins offers Eliz a only a return to the status quo ante.

This page intentionally left blank

3

It Happened One Night

An E d u c a t i o n i n H u m i l i t y

In th e previou s chapter, I traced Pygmalion's critiqu e of two form s o f social hierarchy: th e clas s hierarch y that privilege s th e Britis h aristocracy and th e gende r hierarch y that privilege s males . In thi s chapter, I argu e that If Happened One Night, Fran k Capra's 193 4 romanti c comedy, delivers parallel criticisms of class and gender hierarchy, but articulate d now in the mor e broadly democrati c contex t o f American society . Wealth an d masculinist assumptions of superiority based on expertise are represented as forms of pride inimical to the democratic values the film endorses. It Happened One Night tell s th e stor y o f Elli e Andrew s (Claudett e Colbert), th e pampered , strong-willed daughte r o f a Wall Stree t tycoon . Ellie's desir e to escap e fro m he r overbearing fathe r ha s led her to marry King Westley (Jameso n Thomas), a n upper-clas s aviato r whom Dadd y regards as a fake and something of a joke. The film's plot centers on Ellie's attempt t o rejoin he r husband after he r father ha s kidnapped her to pre vent the consummation of her marriage. Her journey brings her into con tact with Pete r Warne (Clar k Gable), a newspaper reporter, who decides to help her, banking that an exclusive account of her travels will help him regain his job. On their way to New York, Ellie and Peter fall in love, but a misunderstanding between the m o n th e ev e of their arriva l threatens t o drive Ellie back into her marriage to Westley. The film ends happily, however, with Elli e an d Pete r embarke d on matrimony , Ellie's marriag e t o Westley having been annulled. A great deal of critical attentio n ha s been directed a t It Happened One Night. Fo r academi c fil m theory , i t ha s serve d a s an exampl e of ho w Hollywood narrative s misrepresent and legitimiz e relationship s o f social 4?

48

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

domination. Fo r example , in thei r boo k Popular Film and Television Comedy,1 Stev e Neal e an d Fran k Krutni k offe r a n interpretatio n tha t adopts thi s approach . They cite It Happened One Night a s a paradigm in their analysi s o f th e 1930 s screwbal l comedy , arguin g tha t althoug h premised on a violation of gender norms , these films ultimately served to redeem patriarchal practice in general and traditional marriag e in particular. More broadly, they claim that the genre as a whole functioned t o nor malize anxieties caused by the Great Depression . Neale an d Krutni k emphasize tha t b y th e en d o f It Happened One Night, th e once-rebelliou s Elli e ha s been taugh t "acceptanc e o f the au thority o f the mal e an d a rejection o f th e woman' s economic indepen dence" (Neale and Krutnik, p. 154). The danger s to good orde r posed by the economi c an d socia l independenc e o f women ar e evoked onl y to be trivialized'—these threat s t o th e patriarch y ca n be contained . Finally , Neale and Krutnik assert, the film's critique of class domination i s not serious, for it makes "no attempt t o challenge the status quo in regard to th e class hierarchy" (Neale and Krutnik, p. 155). In presenting their view, Neale and Krutnik rely on Stanley Cavell's interpretation o f both It Happened One Night and the genre that Cavell calls the comed y of remarriage. This i s ironic becaus e Cavell's assessmen t of these films is diametrically opposed t o theirs, a fact they apparently fail to notice. Fo r Cavell , these ar e majo r work s o f art, "trac[ing] th e progres s from narcissis m an d incestuou s privacy to objectivit y an d th e acknowl edgment of otherness as the path and goal of human happiness; and since this happines s is expressed a s marriage, we understand i t a s simultane ously an individual an d socia l achievement," 2 That is, Cavell views these narratives a s exploration s o f th e developmen t o f genuin e mutuality . Although h e acknowledges tha t th e sociohistorica l context o f their pro duction i s implicated in thei r interpretations o f human existence, Cavell denies tha t thes e film s ar e simply meant t o persuad e th e oppresse d t o consent t o thei r oppression , th e ver y position tha t Neale an d Krutnik endorse. In m y view, both approaches to the film suffer fro m significan t deficits. Cavell's demonstratio n tha t th e film addresse s inescapable issues of hu man lif e an d conduc t show s tha t It Happened One Night canno t be dis missed a s mere ideology. On th e othe r hand , his reading underplays the narrative weight of class in the film to the point that he is precluded fro m seeing ho w vital t o it s intention s i s its critiqu e o f class hierarchy. One symptom o f this blindnes s i s that althoug h Cavel l doe s notic e tha t th e

If HaffeaeJ One Night 4

9

film, like all comedies of remarriage, is set among the wealthy , he denie s that i t i s concerned wit h wealt h per s e or that wealt h is even an issue for it. Instead, its social location i s justified b y its real subject, conversation, a luxury only the wealth y ca n afford. 3 Thi s surprisin g clai m suggest s ho w the metaphysical framework Cavell uses to think about this film—and the other comedie s of remarriage—excludes serious consideration of class. My analysi s of It Happened One Night share s Cavell's respec t fo r thi s film as a serious intellectual product, deserving of the carefu l analysi s usually accorded t o works of philosophy, but wit h a n approach to its central dilemmas tha t i s sociall y critica l rathe r tha n metaphysical . Lik e Pygmalion, It Happened One Night indicts both wealth and masculine selfassurance, but i t doe s s o on differen t grounds : a s forms of pride tha t in hibit genuinely democratic relationships . To these forms of pride, the film counterposes "using strategy," a form o f conduct tha t we can construe as living by one's wits , by improvisation. A t a personal level, the film's brief for this mode of being-in-the-world is that it makes happiness attainable; at the social level, to live by one's wits implies that openness to the stream of experience that a democratic orde r requires.

A Bra t an d a Lou t From th e outset , It Happened One Night presents class and gender a s obstacles to romance between Peter an d Ellie. As in Pygmalion, thes e obsta cles ar e understood a s such by both principals , who initiall y reac t t o on e another as representatives of objectionable social types. For Ellie, Peter is an impudent young man on the make . To keep him in his place, she takes the haught y lin e th e wealth y reserv e fo r their socia l inferiors . On th e other hand , Peter register s Elli e a s a spoiled, upper-clas s brat , a young woman ignorant o f life. Because Peter sees himself as a man of the world , someone who know s his way around-—a stance authorized b y a rnasculinist inflation of his own capabilities-—he has nothing bu t contemp t fo r her. These tw o coul d hardl y b e les s suite d t o on e another—although , o f course, from th e titles on, everyone in the theater know s better. The film' s initia l scene s establis h Ellie' s positio n a s the scio n o f a superrich American family . When we first see her, she is captive aboar d her father' s yacht . Alexander Andrews (Walte r Connolly), a Wall Stree t tycoon, ha s kidnapped hi s daughter because he thinks sh e rushed head long int o a foolish marriage . The plus h surrounding s o n th e yacht, as well as the presence of a large crew, establish Andrews's wealth and power.

50

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

His high-hande d respons e t o Ellie' s choic e o f husban d show s tha t Andrews's wealth has accustomed him to getting hi s way, Ellie has grown up in these opulent, yet because she is female, isolating circumstances. As a result, her socia l position—at once privileged an d inexperienced—dic tates her approach to life. There are a number of reasons why, by contrast, describing the precis e way i n which th e fil m establishe s Peter' s clas s position i s difficult. Th e first is that h e writes fo r a newspaper. Because reporters earn a wage by writing a t th e comman d o f a n editor , the y ca n stan d fo r th e mas s of Americans who liv e by wage labor . In th e 1930s , the financia l circum stances of newspaper reporters wer e sufficiently modes t that their way of life resembled that of other workers. But journalism is not a typical working-class occupation , fo r reporters mak e their livin g manipulatin g lan guage rather than brute matter. It is worth noting that the figure of the newspaper reporter was a staple of the Hollywoo d comedie s o f the 1930s . Because many of the scriptwriter s lured to Hollywood b y its glamour and good mone y had been newspaper people, th e figure of the cynica l and hard-boiled reporte r becam e a means of commenting on their own situation. Like reporters, scriptwriters are generally not free to choose their subjects but produce to meet the demands of a paymaster. Writers workin g under the Hollywoo d studi o system of the 1930s were employed to work on pictures in which the studio moguls were interested. Thus, as Pauline Kael has remarked, the reporte r function s a s a stand-in fo r the Hollywoo d scriptwriter : "The ne w heroes o f the screen were created in the image of their authors: They were fast-talking newspaper reporters." 4 By heroizing the reporter , scriptwriters were able to asser t their own superiority to the circumstances in which they worked. A secon d difficult y i n precisel y determinin g Peter' s clas s position i s that, unlike Pygmalion, It Happened One Night deploys a populist rhetori c of representatio n tha t denie s th e existenc e o f rigi d clas s division s i n America. Although th e film acknowledges that th e rich constitute a class apart, it treats all the rest as simply members of an amorphous "American people." As a result, Peter cannot be identified as a worker in the Marxian sense; he i s instead a n everyman , that contentles s abstractio n tha t i n American eye s brings togethe r al l but th e ver y wealthiest. Despit e th e ambiguities of Peter's class position, however, there is a vast gulf between his status and Ellie's. Peter an d Elli e firs t mee t o n a bus. Having escape d fro m he r father' s yacht, Ellie make s her way to a bus station, anxiou s to trave l back to he r

If HaffeaeJ One Night 5

1

husband in New York, Peter is on the same New York-bound bus, hoping to reclaim the job from whic h he has just been fired. They meet when she takes the seat he has just cleared of a pile of newspapers. While he argues with the driver, who is upset that h e has simply tossed th e papers out th e bus window, she blithely walks by and takes his seat, as if it had been prepared for her. When Peter challenges her, she asks the driver if the seats are reserved and he replies that they are not, happy to put Peter in his place or, rather, to keep him out of it. Irritated b y this turn of events and not wanting to allo w Ellie to best him , Peter demand s to kno w whether th e seats are meant for one occupant or for two. When the driver reluctantly allows that they are for two, Peter gruffly assume s the seat next to Ellie, A scene that take s place soon afte r serve s to emphasize how difficult i t will be for the two of them to get past this sort of sparring. At the first rest stop, in a long shot taken from behin d Peter—so that we see as if through his eyes—Pete r notice s a thief stealin g Ellie' s suitcase . Then, in a sho t taken fro m Ellie' s vantage point, Pete r i s shown rushing toward he r an d she conclude s tha t Pete r i s makin g som e weir d sor t o f pas s a t her . Returning winded an d dishevele d fro m hi s pursuit of the thief , Pete r as sumes tha t Elli e understand s hi s actions. She does not, however , and re sponds dismissivel y t o hi s attempte d explanation , "I don't kno w what you're ravin g about, young man . And, furthermore , I' m no t interested " (One Night, p. 138). 5 When sh e finally understands what ha s transpired, she nonetheless tries to keep him at a distance—to accept his repeated offers o f help might reveal her identity, something she must conceal to elude recapture. But Peter think s Elli e i s being needlessl y distant and winds up expostulating, "Why, you ungrateful brat!" uttering the epithet wit h which he will continue to address her throughout the film, Ellie an d Pete r ar e unable t o communicat e because o f assumptions each harbors about class and gender, which blind the m t o the individu ality of the other . But a t th e sam e rime, If Happened One Night accords these assumption s a measure of validity. Thus, the fil m doe s no t trea t the assumption s simpl y a s obstacles th e tw o will hav e to surmoun t on the way to romantic intimacy. Each regard s the other a s a beneficiary of illegitimate socia l privilege, a position th e fil m endorses . Thus, Peter' s perception o f Elli e a s a spoiled bra t become s th e film's verdict o n th e pridefulness o f wealth—money authorize s th e ric h t o trea t other s a s mere instrument s o f their will . And Ellie' s perceptio n o f Peter a s an opinionated lou t become s th e film' s critiqu e o f masculinis t prideful ness—specialized knowledge authorize s men to denigrate women . Ellie

52

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

the brat and Peter the know-it-all thus figure forms of pride that inhibit true democratic reciprocity . Elite's Brattiness In th e Christia n tradition , prid e is the first of the seve n deadly sins. I t consists in an "overweening opinion o f one's own qualities, attainments, or estate, which give s rise to a feeling and attitud e o f superiority ove r and contempt for others."6 It Happened One Night exhibits Elite's pridefiilnes s in her wealth as an unreflective sense of entitlement vis-a-vis the ordinary Americans sh e encounters. O n he r journey with Peter , sh e will acquire greater respect for others an d a correspondingly humble r estimate o f her own worth. Although Elli e is the mai n object of the film' s critiqu e of wealth, tha t indictment extends to her father as well. Alexander Andrews's use offeree to keep Ellie from he r husband dramatizes the film's critique of wealth as a for m o f pride. Those who possess it simpl y assume that the y have the right t o use other people as they see fit. Andrews, it i s true, wishes t o spar e his daughter th e pai n h e assumes will be hers onc e she realizes her mistak e in marryin g King Westley. To convince Elli e tha t h e has acted i n he r best interests , Andrews calls th e aviator "no good" and "a fake," as if his contempt fo r Westley entitles hi m to kidnap his daughter from he r own wedding. This Wall Street tycoon is accustomed to getting his way, through brute assertions of his wealth and power if necessary. In fact , when Ellie object s that his "idea of strategy is to us e a lead pipe," Andrews boasts, "I've won a lot o f arguments with a lead pipe" (One Night, p. 128). In the present context, however, it is pretty clear tha t thi s typ e o f "strategy " wil l no t work : Th e measure s tha t Andrews has taken, even though motivate d by well-intentioned concer n for Ellie' s welfare, will no t secur e her acceptanc e of his point o f view. In fact, Ellie's marriage to King Westley continues her pattern of reacting to her father' s wishe s by doing just the opposite . When Andrews tell s her , "You married him only because I told you not to" (One Night, p, 129), she acknowledges this. Her father' s ruthlessness demonstrates th e validity of Ellie's desir e t o escap e his domination, but a t the sam e time hi s insigh t into he r motivation announce s the narrative' s goal for Ellie: t o learn th e positive content of her own desire. Although Andrew s claim s to b e employing strateg y t o get Elli e t o change her rnind, wielding a lead pipe is not her idea of a strategic way to

If HaffeaeJ One Night S

3

get what on e wants. The propositio n tha t on e can achieve one's ends by using one's wits is important t o this story, for Ellie will herself accept cre ative improvisation as an approach to life. Her father' s wealth has made it unnecessary for him to use real strategy to achieve his ends. But i f Andrews s tactics ar e wrong, hi s assessmen t of Elli e s marriage seems accurate. This raises the issu e of how one can be made to se e that one's understanding of a situation is mistaken, that there is another, better way of looking a t it. We can cal l this th e proble m o f education, an d we find It Happened One Night continuin g to addres s it during Ellie's travels with Peter . So far, the film has shown that Andrews's attempt t o coerce a change of mind has only increased Ellie' s stubborn determinatio n no t t o do so. Exactly how using strategy is an alternative to forc e becomes clear as the narrativ e progresses. That Elli e i s very much he r father' s daughter , equally prideful i n he r wealth, is established when the bu s passengers are given a thirty-minute breakfast stop after their night of travel. Ellie has awakened to find herself sleeping o n Peter' s shoulder— a first intimation o f the possibilit y o f ro mance—and tells Peter tha t she is going t o the Hotel Windsor, presumably her sort of place. When Pete r warns that sh e will mis s the bus , she assures him, "Oh, no . No, they'll wait for me." To be on the saf e side , she admonishes th e bu s drive r a s she leaves, "Driver, I' m goin g to b e a few minutes late. Be sure you wait for me" (One Night, p. 141). O f course, the bus pulls off without her , much to Ellie's outrage: "Why, that's ridiculous! I was on that bus—I told them to wait" (One Night, p, 142). For all her rejection o f her father , sh e shares his confidenc e tha t th e worl d revolve s around the needs of the rich. In Pygmalion, Higgins' s bachelorhoo d i s both caus e an d effec t o f hi s failure to acknowledge his finitude, his need for others. Ellie is beset by an analogous problem; Becaus e of her wealth, she does no t se e the nee d i n her relation s wit h other s to , in Cavell' s terms , acknowledge their other ness—they exist only to serve her ends. It Happened One Night takes its criticism of wealth a s a source of pride even furthe r i n Ellie' s subsequent interaction wit h Peter . When sh e gets over he r shoc k a t th e departur e o f the bus , she notice s tha t Pete r ha s waited for her. He explain s that he is there because he has read a newspaper an d foun d ou t wh o sh e is and what sh e is doing o n th e bus . When Ellie worries that he is going to expose her—"Listen, if you'll promise not to do it [i.e., turn her in to her father], I'll pay you. I'll pay you as much as he will" (One Night, p. 143)—Peter retorts ,

54

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

You know, I had you pegged righ t fro m th e start . You're the spoiled brat of a rich father. The onl y way you can get anything is to buy it. Now you're in a jam an d all you can think of is your money. It neve r fails, does it? Ever hea r of the wor d "humility" ? No, you wouldn't. I gues s i t neve r occurred to you just t o say , "Please, Mister, I'm in trouble . Wil l you help me? " No. That'd bring you down off your high hors e for a minute. (One Night, p. 144 )

In this angry speech, Peter tells Ellie that she will have to learn the meaning of the word "humility", the paradigmatic Christian virtue . To relate to others on the basis of a shared common humanity rather than on the prerogatives of her wealth is the lesson in democratic citizenship tha t her trip with Peter offers her , although no t in the way Peter expects.

Peter th e K n o w - l t - A I I It Happened One Night make s the iron y of Peter's reproac h to Ellie , tha t she lacks humility, abundantly clear, although this aspect of the film is absent from Cavell' s account of it. Peter's masculinist pretensions are subject to as serious and sustained a critique as Ellie's moneyed hauteur.7 When we first see Peter in the bus station, he is slightly drunk and talking on a pay phone to his New York editor, Joe Gordon (Charle s Wilson) . To the delight of a crowd of drunken but admirin g fellow reporters , Peter asserts his independence by refusing to accept the terms of his employment. But when Gordon actuall y fires him for sending in an article written in fre e verse—"Why didn't you tell m e you were going t o write i t in Greek? " he complains—Peter is briefly take n aback . He quickl y recovers his poise , however, and continues talking int o the now-dea d phone . He pretend s to tell Gordon off , announce s that he is quitting the paper, and then expresses his hope that "this [his quitting] will be a lesson to you!" Because he behaves as if he does no t care what his boss thinks, his act earns the admiratio n of his credulou s colleagues, al l of whom resen t thei r ow n bosses bu t lac k Peter's reckless self-assurance. When h e hangs up the phone, his retinue accompanies him to the New York bus-—his "chariot"—in a mock ceremony, chanting, "Make way for the King!" (OneNight, p. 133).8 Despite our own undeniable pleasure in Peter's performance , we know that h e need s the job fro m whic h h e ha s been fired, so that his bravado, which plays so well to the gallery , actually puts him in a precarious position. Because he cannot bear to be humiliated in front of his admiring audience, his pride causes him to jeopardize hi s future . During hi s subsequent travels with Ellie, Peter's machism o is subjected to extende d an d explicitl y critica l scrutiny . For example, when Pete r at -

If HaffeaeJ One Night S

5

tempts to use donut dunking and hitchhiking a s opportunities t o impress Ellie with hi s savvy, she instead ridicules his inflated estimat e of his own accompEshments. In two wonderfully comic episodes, the film shows how male epistemic display defeats democratic reciprocity. The donut-dunkin g episode takes place at breakfast on the morning after Pete r an d Elli e hav e spent thei r firs t nigh t o n opposit e side s of th e hung blanket they call "the Wall o f Jericho," (This blanket, subject to extensive interpretation b y Cavell, functions t o keep Ellie's virtue intact despite he r sleepin g in the sam e room wit h Peter. ) A s Elli e confesse s that she has never before been alon e with a man, Peter interrupts, apparently to fault her for dunking her donut in her coffee : PETER: Say, where did you learn to dunk—in finishing school? ELLIE: Aw now, don't you start telling m e I shouldn't dunk. PETER: O f cours e you shouldn't . Yo u don't kno w how to d o it . Dunking's an art. Don't let it soak so long. A dip, and plop, into your mouth. If you let it soak so long, it'll get soft an d fall off. It's all a matter of liming, I ought to write a book about it. ELLIE: Thanks, Professor. PETER: Just goes to show you. Twenty million dollars and you don't know how to dunk. (One Night, p. 162) At first , Elli e i s surprised that Peter i s concerned with ho w she dunks her donut rather than with the propriety of the practice itself. Then, more to the point, sh e ridicules Peter's eviden t pride in his donut-dunking expertise. Sh e mock s the suggestio n tha t dunkin g is the sor t o f activit y about which one needs instruction. Indeed, Peter' s ide a of writing a book about it betrays the extent of his false pride. But, oblivious to her sarcasm, Peter conclude s his faile d lesso n by pointing u p th e differenc e betwee n Ellie's vast resources and he r scan t knowledge o f the thing s tha t reall y count in life . This is Peter's firs t attemp t a t instructing Ellie, but sh e certainly does not lear n th e intende d lesson . The reason s for this failure , however , require some unpacking, for what we know and ho w we learn fro m other s are subjects that this film repeatedly calls to our attention, Peter' s conceit is that hi s possession o f special knowledges tha t other s lac k makes him superior t o them . In th e presen t scene , it i s this presumptio n tha t leads him t o thin k o f writing a book abou t donut dunking . But t o Ellie , thi s idea is preposterous. Dunking a donut is just not a n activity that requires what we think o f as book learning. Peter i s right tha t he r donut will fal l

56

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

apart if she lets it soak , but th e way in which he instructs Ellie shows us more about him than it does about donuts: We learn that Peter need s to compensate fo r thi s young woman's clas s advantag e b y trumpeting hi s own epistemic superiority. Peter's inappropriat e attemp t t o teach Elli e ho w to dunk a donut does not mean there i s nothing tha t sh e needs to learn. Indeed, I argue in the next section tha t sh e acquires something vastly more important an d subtle—an education i n democratic values. The lesson s that Elli e learns she learns from experience , however, not from a set of instructions such as one might find in a how-to book . A secon d comi c episode, th e famou s hitchhikin g scene , deals Peter' s pridefulness a more severe blow. This sequence occurs early one morning , after Pete r an d Ellie ar e forced t o spend a night together unde r the star s to elud e her pursuers. Ellie sit s on a fence watching a s Peter give s her a lesson in how to thumb a ride. Once again, Peter boasts that his expertise qualifies hi m t o writ e a book. An d onc e again , th e fil m undercut s hi s boast, only this tim e Peter himsel f is forced to acknowledg e that mayb e he does no t "kno w it all. " As Peter move s to th e road' s edge, Ellie asks him, ELLIE: But suppose nobody stops for us? PETER: Oh, they'l l sto p al l right. It's a matter o f knowing how to hail them. ELLIE: You're an expert, I suppose. PETER: Expert ! Goin g t o writ e a boo k o n it , calle d th e "Hitchhiker's Hail" — ELLIE: There's no end to your accomplishments. PETER: You think it's simple, huh? ELLIE (exaggeratedly): Oh , no ! No! PETER: Well, i t is simple. It's al l in the old thumb. A lot of people do it—(waves)—like this . (Shakes bis bead sadly) Al l wrong , Never get anywhere. ELLIE: Ah! The poor things. PETER: Yea h boy , tha t ol d thum b neve r fails . (One Night, pp . 183-184) Peter goes on to demonstrate the three effective motions . But when he actually tries them, it is to no avail. After being passed by a flurry of cars, Peter retracts his boast:

If HaffeaeJ One Night S

7

PETER: I don't think I'll write a book after all . ELLIE: Yeah, Think of all the fu n you had though. (Heglares at her.) Do you mind if I try? PETER (contemptuously): You ! Don't make me laugh. ELLIE: You're such a smart Aleck! Nobody knows anything but you. Ill sto p a car—and I won't use my thumb. (One Night, p. 185) Of course, when Ellie proceeds to the curb, "lifts her skirt above her knees and pretends to be fixing her garter" (One Night, p. 185), a passing car immediately screeches to a halt (see Photo 3.1). In the next shot, we see Ellie comfortably ensconce d i n th e bac k sea t nex t t o a humiliated Peter , t o whom sh e has , she explains , "proved onc e an d fo r al l that th e lim b is mightier than the thumb" (One Night, p. 185) . In thi s delightful scene , Ellie no t onl y ridicules Peter fo r his boasting , she shows him she is a good deal more resourceful than he thinks. The au dience identifies wit h Elli e throughout a s she teases Peter an d then one ups him. After all , it turns out that Ellie knows how to stop a car in a way that Pete r cannot . Ellie' s debunking once agai n show s up Peter' s mas culinist compulsion to appear more knowledgeable than any mere woman. The sor t of instruction that Peter thinks he has to offer Elli e consists of a fixe d se t of techniques, i n thi s cas e for hitchhiking . An d thes e strata gems ar e what h e imagine s including in hi s book. Bu t Ellie' s success comes not from followin g a recipe but fro m actin g strategically, improvising. Recal l her father' s claim that i n kidnappin g Ellie fro m he r wedding he was employing strategy. The hitchhikin g sequenc e provides a competing interpretation o f using strategy, namely, applying one's wits to adap t action to circumstance. This is the lesson Ellie has learned from observin g Peter's handlin g of the various difficulties the y have faced togethe r o n the road. It Happened One Night thus counterposes tw o concepts o f learning: the acquisitio n o f the kin d of specialize d know-ho w Pete r take s such pride in versus the development o f one's capacities for creatively responding to one's experience-—the alternative opened to Ellie by her adventures with Peter . Elite's Educatio n lo r Democrac y It Happened One Night i s a romantic comedy of mutua l transformation. The obstacle s i n the way of its unlikely couple are removed as Ellie finds she enjoy s bein g with Pete r an d he comes t o car e abou t her . These dis -

58

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

Photo S. I Elit e show s sh e ca n us e strategy, to o

coveries lead the partner s to reject that par t o f themselves that th e othe r rightly views as representative of an oppressive social type. The flowerin g of romance between Peter an d Ellie is thus a story about their educatio n for democracy, In contemporar y terms, the persona l ha s become th e politica l i n th e specific sense that the triumph of their love symbolizes the possibility of a democratic culture . For Ellie , thi s mean s learning t o encounte r a s her equals the Americans with whom she comes into contact during her travels with Peter. Whether it is waiting in line to shower in an auto camp or happily singing along with "commo n folk" on a bus, her road tri p i s one extended lesso n i n humility. In additio n t o discoverin g tha t sh e has suffered fro m th e vice of pride, Ellie finds out that being a commoner can be a great deal more fun than being cocooned in her father's wealth.9 This lesson i n democratic value s represent s the film's positive alternative to pride as a way of being-in-the-world. My analysis of the hitchhik ing scene has already pointed the way to understanding the significance of creative improvisatio n in Elite' s education . Sh e has come to prefe r usin g

If HaffeaeJ One Night

&9

strategy, livin g b y her wits , t o th e lif e o f stultifying privilege sh e has known. Although thi s is conveyed in a number of scenes, only one can be discussed here. The scen e in question takes place immediately after Peter s failed lesso n in donu t dunking . The coupl e s breakfast conversation is interrupted b y the intrusion of Mr. Dyke, the owner of the auto camp, who is accompanied b y two detective s sen t b y Ellie's father. Aware of thei r approach , Peter has seated Ellie on the bed, and as he combs her hair down over her face, he loudly recounts his conversation with Aunt Bellah fro m Wilkes Barre. At first, Ellie ha s no idea what he is doing, but sh e quickly catches on and plays along with him (se e Photo 3.2). When Pete r feigns anger at one o f the detective s t o distrac t hi m fro m hi s quarry, Ellie jump s i n t o "calm" Peter. Sh e even introduces her own variations on the stor y he has been fabricating. After Peter protests to Dyke, "They [th e detectives] can't come i n her e an d star t shootin g question s a t m y wife!" Elli e turn s o n him—"Don't get excited, Peter. They just asked a civil question"—capturing the bickering tone of old marrieds so well that it throws Dyke and the detectives of f the scent . Ellie i s so convincing as the aggrieve d housewife that Dyk e eve n comes to he r aid , reproaching the detective s fo r causing an argumen t between this long-suffering "littl e woman" and her bullying husband (OneNight, pp. 165-166), Ellie clearl y gets a kick out o f pretending to be Peter's wife . Her plea sure stems not just from thei r success in putting one over on her pursuers, but fro m he r deligh t i n how they played off one another. In improvisin g the rol e of the abuse d housewife, Elli e i s forced t o us e her wits. Indeed , she embroiders o n Peter' s script . Ellie' s enjoymen t derives from he r dis covery and exercise of capacities that her sheltered existence had kept hid den and unused.10 This incident i s important to the evolutio n o f the couple , for it causes Peter to realize that there is more to Ellie tha n the spoiled bra t he has so far disdained—sh e ha s reserve s o f character undevelope d by he r privi leged way of life. As a result, both h e and Ellie come to see other possibil ities for their relationship : PETER: Say , you weren't bad . Jumping i n lik e that . Go t a brain, haven't you. ELLIE: You weren't so bad yourself. PETER: We could start a two-person stoc k company. (One Night, p. 166)

60

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

Pbeto 3.2 Tke Smt Deeeftiau Impressed b y Ellie's skill at improvisation, Peter playfull y suggest s a very different typ e of relationship, imagining Ellie and himself as a two-perso n troupe a s a way of acknowledging that, with he r quic k wit, ther e i s a fit between the m afte r all . Although th e stoc k compan y metaphor doe s no t imply romance , i t doe s symboliz e a joint undertakin g tha t transcend s short-term mutua l convenience. Although thi s fantasy is Peter's, ther e ar e still limits to what h e is willing t o imagine . After h e ha s give n thei r performance a title, The Great Deception, Elli e add s that the y coul d als o d o "Cinderella, " invokin g th e fairy-tale romanc e of class ascent . Peter' s cur t rebuff , "N o mush y stuff, " indicates tha t h e is not yet ready to entertain th e ide a of a romance wit h Ellie. On the other hand, Ellie's suggestio n reveal s that her imagination is already headed tha t way. Peter an d Ellie' s masquerad e exemplifies the film's understanding o f how one changes the way one lives one's life. Ellie learns how to improvise by first observing Pete r an d the n becomin g a partner t o hi s stratagem . And i n doing so, she experiences the pleasures of a new kind of freedom. Neither Peter s attempts to instruct her nor her father's efforts a t coercion

If HaffeaeJ One Night 6

1

have this power. Experience o f a life live d among ordinary Americans is Ellie's best teacher , becaus e it call s on he r t o cultivat e he r capacitie s fo r judgment and choice. This is the importan t lesso n in democratic culture that Ellie learns on the road with Peter .

Men's Ways of Knowing It All Although the trip to New York has transformed Ellie and her relationship with Peter , it has not yet, on the eve of their arrival , altered their explici t understanding of what ties them to one another. He is still intent on get ting the story of her journey and she is still headed back to King Westley. Although eac h o f them harbor s feelings that coul d chang e the natur e of their relationship , they are not abl e to acknowledge those feeling s t o one another. But if in the final scenes of the film the romanc e we have all eagerly anticipate d blossoms , thei r relationshi p does no t reac h thi s stag e without a serious breach, one that threatens to keep them apart for good. Only after weathering this crisis are they finally united. Ellie ha s jettisoned he r prideful behavior , but befor e sh e and Peter can become a couple, h e will have to acknowledg e hi s own pridefulness an d see that h e too need s a lesson in democracy. So long as he maintain s his masculinist belief in a hierarchy based on knowledge, he cannot be an appropriate partner for Ellie. A rupture in their relationship challenges Peter to accord her equal authority, and only when this has been accomplishe d can these two come together as a couple. The crisi s that paves the way for Peter's transformatio n conies about as a result of Ellie s attempt t o turn the relationshi p in a romantic direction. That Elli e ha s learned t o us e strategy i s attested t o i n th e sequenc e in which the two of them spend a last night together o n the road. This is the first time in the film that she is depicted a s having enough knowledg e of her ow n desires and enoug h confidenc e in he r ow n abilitie s t o actuall y control the situation . Because Peter see s no reason for them to spend an other nigh t o n the roa d when the y are so near New York, Ellie creates a subterfuge t o force the issue of their future : PETER: If you ask me, I think it's foolish . I told you there's n o use our stayin g here tonight. We could mak e New York in less than three hours. ELLIE: Well, wh o eve r hear d o f getting in a t thre e o'cloc k i n th e morning. Everybody'd be asleep. (One Night, p, 190 )

62

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

Relying on Peter's sense of her as spoiled an d subject to whims, Ellie gets him t o do something h e thinks is unnecessary. Of course, the rea l reason for this dilatory tactic i s to giv e Peter a final chance to expres s romantic interest in her. Unbeknownst to him, she has found out that her father has become reconciled t o he r marriag e to Kin g Westley, and thi s i s her las t chance to see if Peter loves her. As the Wall of Jericho goes up in a now-familiar ritual, the two of them begin a conversation. Although clearl y unhappy about parting from Ellie , Peter tell s he r tha t h e doe s no t pla n to se e her i n Ne w York because "I don't make it a policy to run around with married women" (One Night, p . 191). Pete r i s angry , feeling that Elli e ha s used hi m t o delive r he r t o Westley, even though i t was his idea to hel p Ellie in return for the stor y that would get him his job back. When Ellie goes on to ask him whether he has ever been in love, Peter respond s with a rather lengthy soliloquy in which he tells her both o f his fantasy of finding the woman of his dreams and his doubts about whether such a woman exists. Peter's reverie ended, he—and we, for th e camer a moves back from a close-up t o a medium shot—find tha t Ellie ha s breached the wall an d come to Peter's bedside . She now declares her love for him: ELLIE: Take m e with you, Peter. Take m e to your island. I want t o do all those things you talked about . PETER: You'd better get back to your bed. ELLIE: I lov e you . Nothin g els e matters . W e ca n ru n away . Everything'll take care of itself. Please, Peter. I can't let you out of rny life now . I couldn't live without you. PETER: You'd better go back to your bed. (One Night, p. 193 ) Several factors migh t explai n why Peter reject s Ellie's overture. To ac cept would morall y taint thei r eventua l union, for in crossing th e barrie r between them , Ellie show s a willingness to transgress the prohibition o n adultery. There may be some validity to this suggestion—when Peter and Ellie ar e finally reunited, i t i s neither a s adulterers nor a s bigamists—but there i s another , more immediate , reason fo r hi s hesitancy . Recall tha t Peter has been counting on the exclusive story of Ellie's return to her husband to get him back his job at the paper. Accepting Ellie's declaration of love would jeopardize thi s plan, leaving him without th e stor y he needs . As the subsequen t scenes show, however, Peter doe s find a way to square the circle—it will be their story that he writes and sells.

If HaffeaeJ One Night

61

Finally, Ellie's entreaty that he accept her as a lover threatens his control over hi s fantasie s and hi s life . That thi s now-ardent , flesh-and-bloo d woman might actually be the woman of his dreams is as difficult fo r Pete r to accep t a s it was for Higgins t o se e Eliza a s something mor e than hi s creation. The tw o men share the masculin e compulsion to flee from de pendency on women. Peter canno t yet acknowledge to himself the fact of his love for Ellie. After Ellie' s passionat e declaration, Peter lie s awake, apparently working out a plan of action. But when he finally turns to Elli e to ask , "Hey, Brat—! Did yo u mea n that ? Would yo u reall y go ? Hey, Brat— " (One Night, p . 194) , th e questio n conie s to o late , fo r she ha s cried hersel f t o sleep. Pete r the n rashly decides that h e has time t o go to New York, sell their story , and then return to her with the proceeds to announce his love. Things do not go as Peter ha s planned, however . The wif e o f the aut o camp owner, who has noticed tha t thei r ca r is gone, gets he r husband to awaken Ellie and throw her out. Ellie is shocked to discover that Peter has left withou t a word, concluding tha t he r declaratio n o f love has driven him away . Seeing no other solutio n t o her predicament, she contacts he r father an d returns to Westley. Now it is Peter's turn to misunderstand th e situation: He thinks that Ellie ha s played him for a fool. Instead of realizing tha t the y d o genuinel y care fo r one another , eac h suspect s tha t th e other's motivation has been selfish al l along. This crisi s mark s a regression i n their relationship . Whe n Pete r an d Ellie first met, their attribution o f class- and gender-specific faults t o one another cause d them t o systematicall y misinterpret eac h other' s inten tions. With their adventure s together ha d corne mutual trust an d under standing, but when Peter act s on his own, he violates that mutuality . As a result, suspicion returns and the couple is driven apart. Before thi s final narrative problem ca n be solved , Peter' s masculinis m must b e addressed . H e ha s no t ye t undergon e his transformation. As Peter's lat e nigh t fligh t fro m Elli e demonstrates , h e remain s convinced that despit e he r jibes, h e ha s al l the answers . Before the y ca n for m th e couple whose mutualit y prefigures th e democrati c cultur e th e fil m en dorses, Peter, too, will have to learn humility. The fina l scene s of It Happened One Night manage to reunite Peter and Ellie i n a way that clear s the pat h t o marriage , but no t before erecting a last obstacle . O n th e mornin g o f her remarriag e t o Westley, Andrew s shows Elli e a letter fro m Pete r askin g that h e b e pai d th e mone y he is owed. The lette r furthe r dishearten s Ellie , for it suggests tha t Pete r was,

64

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

after all, only interested in her for the price on her head. Her resolv e to go through with her repeat marriage to Westley is further strengthened . This doubt abou t Peter' s character—tha t h e is mercenary—is no t on e the audience has previously entertained. Although a t this point in the film a viewer may succumb to Ellie's skepticism about him, Peter has never before shown an interest in the reward. On the contrary, when Ellie had earlier offered hi m money in return for his silence, Peter contemptuously dismissed her attempt t o buy him off. As it turn s out, Ellie's—an d our—fait h i n Peter i s restored. When h e comes to Andrews's house to collect his money, he presents a biE for $39.60, a figure that represents only the expense he has incurred during his travels with Ellie , excludin g even his own bus fare. Not onl y does this rene w our confidence i n Peter s integrity , it als o shows that Pete r i s not afte r Ellie' s money. On thi s evidence, Andrews judges Peter to be an appropriate part ner for his daughter, his occupation and class status notwithstanding.11 Finally, whe n Elli e learn s tha t Pete r ha s n o interes t i n th e rewar d money, she bolts fro m he r wedding ceremon y and joins Pete r i n a n auto camp. The new s of the annulmen t of her marriage arrives and we hear a trumpet sound—the Wall of Jericho will, at last, come tumbling down. But ha s Peter's masculinis t pride reall y been humbled ? Although her e the film is not entirely clear, two pieces of evidence imply that it has. The first i s Peter' s dejectio n ove r hi s separatio n fro m Ellie . The buoyant , prideful Pete r o f old has not survive d the breakup . He want s t o be wit h her ye t seem s unable to fin d a way to mak e this happen . I n Pygmalion, Higgins's inability to acknowledg e his dependence o n Eliz a signale d his limitations, and in the end, Eliza i s left withou t a man who could be her equal. Happil y fo r Ellie , i n // Happened One Night, Peter—Higgins' s counterpart—is forced by his own feelings to admit his love, The mor e explicit indication of Peter's transformation occurs in a final exchange with Ellie' s fathe r afte r Pete r ha s received his check for $39.60 . Andrews, convinced that Pete r i s not a n adventurer, presses him t o admi t that he loves Ellie, Recall that in an earlier, less charged, context, Peter had rebuffed Elli e with a curt, "No mushy stuff." Now, Andrews forces the issue: ANDREWS: Do you love my daughter? PETER: Any guy that'd fal l i n love with your daughter should have his head examined. ANDREWS: That's an evasion. PETER: She picked hersel f a perfect running-mate . Kin g Westley ! The pil l of the century! What she needs is a guy that'd take a sock

If HaffeaeJ One Night

6S

at her once a day—whether it was coming to he r or not.... If you had half the brain s you're supposed t o have, you'd have done it yourself—long ago . ANDREWS: Do you love her? PETER: A norma l human being couldn' t liv e under the sam e roof with her, without going nutty. She's my idea of nothing . ANDREWS: I asked you a question. Do you love her? PETER: Yes!! But don't hold tha t against me. I'm a little screwy myself. (OneNight, pp . 209-210) Pushed int o a corner. Peter acknowledge s hi s love for Ellie , his incom pleteness without her . More significan t still is his recognition tha t Ellie is a woman h e canno t reall y control. Ellie' s initiativ e i n "limbing" them a ride had caused Peter to resent her success, for it challenged his need to be in charge . As he attempt s t o dodg e Andrews' s pointed questions , Pete r admits that Ellie is a woman he cannot dominate: Anyone who would fal l in lov e with her , he says , is crazy. His assertion—whic h perhap s sounds less innocent to our ears than it did to a 1930s audience—that she needs to b e "socked" once a day evidences hi s exasperation ove r her indepen dence, and he adds that an y normal man, ruefully excluding himself fro m that category, would be driven nuts living with her. Ellie ha s changed Peter's idea of his own manhood. H e ca n now admit that he loves her, although she is not exactly (or at all) the sort of woman he expected himsel f to fal l i n love with. Possessing desires and powers of her own, unlike Galatea, Ellie is not defined b y her partner's imagination. The old, know-it-all Peter cannot smoothly incorporate this woman into the life he ha s imagined for himself—sh e wil l insis t on a n equal rol e i n shaping their futur e together . Althoug h w e do no t witness th e detail s o f Peter' s transformation, his final exchange with Andrews is sufficient t o register the fact of its having taken place. This is a real change from the position of masculine superiority that he had previously occupied. Now that he admits his need for ElBe, his dependence on her for his fulfillment, Peter' s own education has been completed. Peter has now become a suitable partner for Ellie.

Conclusion It Happened One Night is the story of Ellie's release from th e confinement of great privileg e an d he r initiatio n int o the flui d worl d o f American democracy. But it is also the story of how Peter grows to accept Ellie as his equal. Th e formatio n o f thi s unlikel y coupl e thu s challenge s bot h

66

It HaffeaeJ One Nljht

traditional masculinis t posture s a s well a s the pridefulnes s o f wealth. Forms of social hierarchy defined b y either class or gender position are antithetical to the film's democratic values. Unlike Pygmalion, It Happened One Night wa s abl e t o satisf y it s Ne w Deal era audience's desire to see this unlikely couple come together without compromising its critical ambitions. It thu s marks a unique synthesis of socia l criticis m an d popula r filmmaking , on e tha t futur e instance s o f the genre will not have an easy time living up to.

Notes 1. Steve Neale an d Fran k Krutnik, Popular Film and Television Comedy (Ne w York and London: Routledge, 1990). In the text, all future references to this book will be given parenthetically. 2. Stanle y Cavell, Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), p. 102 . 3. Cavell, Pursuits of Happiness, p . 5. 4. Pauline Kadi , "Raising Kane," in The Citizen Kane Book, shooting scrip t by Herman J. Mankiewi.cz and Orso n Welles, note s o n th e scrip t b y Gary Care y (Boston: Little, Brow n and Co., 1971) , p. 19. 5. The publishe d screenplay s of It Happened One Night ZK no t alway s accurate, so I hav e mentioned the m i n accordanc e with th e actua l dialogue o f th e film . Parenthetical reference s to One Night ar e to th e scrip t publishe d i n Four-Star Scripts, Lorrain e Noble , ed.(Ne w York : Doubleday, Dora n an d Co. , 1936) . References t o a xerox of the screenpla y by Robert Riski n (It Happened One Night [Hollywood: Script City , 1934]) are indicated parenthetically as Script, 6. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford , UK: Oxfor d University Press, 1971), p. 2297. 7. CavelTs interpretation o f the film completely neglects this strand in the film's narrative. For him, the film is about the education of a woman by a man; thus, his reading does not questio n Peter' s qualification s to be Ellie's teacher. As was true with class privilege, Cavell is blind to male privilege in his reading of the film. 8. By presenting us with two "kings" who will vie for Ellie's affections , th e film also nods in the direction o f Clark Gable's Hollywood nickname , "the King." 9. In The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), Kathleen Rowe offers a n account of the film in which class issues are displaced onto gender an d generational ones. The presen t section em phasizes the film's class theme—Ellie's education for democracy, as I term it—an element that is missing from Rowe' s analysis. 10. In a self-reflexive moment , the film here calls attention t o the limits of the power of the director. Peter can cast Ellie in a role, but only she can bring it to lif e and give it credibility. 11. Andrews has himself been transformed by the ordea l of Ellie's flight . Stil l wanting the best for his daughter, he will no longer jeopardize thei r relationshi p by trying to force her to do what he thinks she should.

4

Pretty Woman

A Fair y Tal e o f Oedipalized Capitalis m

Both Pygmalion an d It Happened One Night, films fro m th e 1930s , indict class an d gende r hierarchie s a s illegitimate form s o f privilege. An d al though, a s we have seen, the specific s o f their indictment s reflect differ ences i n thei r respectiv e socia l settings, both advanc e the sam e plot de vice—the romance of an unlikely couple—as the narrative pretext of their critiques. On th e face of it, the same seems true of Pretty Woman, Gary Marshall's 1990 updatin g of the Pygmalion stor y to post-Reagan America. Whereas Anthony Asquith's film skewered the pretension s o f the Britis h aristoc racy, Pretty Woman take s ai m a t th e newl y ascendant financ e capitalist s who cam e t o prominenc e durin g th e Reaga n era' s ras h o f corporat e takeovers and mergers. Thus, th e film's male lead, its counterpart t o th e master linguist Henry Higgins, is Edward Lewis (Richard Gere), a highly successful takeove r specialis t modele d o n th e like s of Michael Milliken . Eliza Doolittle , Cockne y flowe r girl , ha s been translate d int o Vivia n Ward (Juli a Roberts), a prostitute. An d Higgins' s bet tha t Eliz a ca n be made to pass as a duchess has become Edward's gambl e that his business associates can be mad e to accep t Vivia n as his girlfriend. Instead o f th e glitter of aristocratic London, we get the glitz of superwealthy American capitalists and their milieu. Pretty Woman tell s th e stor y of Vivian's rise from streetwalke r to highbourgeois consort. Edward, who is in Los Angeles for a week engineering the takeove r o f a manufacturin g firm owned b y James Mors e (Ralp h 6?

68

Pntfy Wemtit

Bellamy) and his son, needs someone to pass as his girlfriend a t the round of social gathering s h e i s expected t o attend, 1 By the en d o f that week , Vivians success at playing Edward' s girlfriend result s in he r actuall y becoming his girlfriend (and, it is intimated, althoug h neve r made explicit , his soon-to-be wife.) Lik e Pygmalion's Eliza , then , Vivian ascend s int o the upper class through her ability to simulate already belonging to it. But unlike Henry Higgins, Edward will not be allowed to persist i n his arrogant masculinism. Given the similaritie s between their narrativ e structures, we might an ticipate Pretty Woman woul d offe r a s biting a critique o f contemporar y American societ y a s Pygmalion ha d o f Britis h societ y between th e tw o great Europea n wars . And indeed , various account s o f the film's genesis suggest tha t its original screenplay was a scathing indictment o f contemporary American capitalism.2 Once Disney acquired the screenplay, however, it demanded that th e script be revised, transforming it fro m a tragic story "about a prostitute who ruined her life because she fell in love" into a "comedy, a fairy tale" that glorifies wealth and endorses male privilege.3 The questio n thes e accounts raise is whether the film itself bears traces of its process of creation. I n articulatin g thi s issue , I find the Col d War metaphor of containment particularly apt. That is, I shall treat the film as aware of the potentia l fo r a serious critique of power and privileg e i n its ascent narrative , yet activel y struggling t o contai n tha t potential , finall y affirming th e alchemical powers of wealth. The crucia l maneuve r in thi s bait-and-switc h strateg y i s to depic t Vivian's ascent as the rectification of an earlier injustice. In celebrating he r reversal of fortune, Pretty Woman conjure s awa y its ow n awareness^and ours—of the inheren t unfairnes s o f hierarchical social structures . Here, the mode l i s clearly the Cinderell a story . And i t wil l not b e difficul t t o trace certai n o f Pretty Woman's representationa l an d narrativ e strategie s back to that source , a debt the film acknowledges in a number of crucial, self-reflexive moments . S o a s well a s updating Pygmalion, Pretty Woman gives u s a Cinderella fo r the 1990s—th e deserving L.A . hooker whos e transfiguration by a go-go capitalist makes up for the abusiv e relationship that had thrust her onto the streets.4 A secon d element i n Pretty Woman's strateg y of containment is a nos talgic recuperatio n o f th e famil y fir m a s a virtuous alternativ e t o th e morally problematic activitie s o f corporate raidin g an d asse t stripping . Through an Oedipalization of economic relationships, th e film limits the scope of its critique of capitalism to the supposed excesses characteristic of

Pretty WtmM 6

9

the Reaga n years. This narrative tactic betrays Pretty Woman's agenda : to join i n th e suddenl y fashionable denunciation o f capitalist "greed, " but only in a way that morally validates the possession of great wealth. Thus is the subversive potential of its ascent narrative safely contained,

Two Character s i n Searc h o f Salvatio n Pretty Woman begins with a parallel montage sequence that introduces its two principals and establishes that despite the very apparent difference i n their economi c circumstances , Edward an d Vivian each stand i n nee d of rescue. That the film presents the lives of both corporate raider and street prostitute a s damaged suggest s tha t we are in fo r a wide-ranging socia l critique. When we first see Edward, at a party given by his lawyer and business associate, Phillip Stucke y (Jason Alexander), he is on the phone with his live-in girlfriend, who is fed up with commands relayed through his secretary. To he r threa t t o mov e out, Edward's respons e i s swif t an d brutal : There i s nothin g t o discuss—obe y o r ge t out , now ! Later , a s Edwar d leaves Phillip's house , he warns the young acolyte a t his elbow to sta y on top of business. Edward's social schedule-^he has tickets for the Met back in Ne w York the followin g Sunday—i s no t t o b e disrupted by delays in the Mors e takeover . Hi s abrup t departur e fro m th e part y Phillip has thrown in his honor underscores his contempt for the flunkies with whom he has surrounded himself. These initial displays of Edward's masculinist pride suggest that he is a character in the tradition of Henry Higgins an d Peter Warne. But it is really Ellie Andrews that he more closely resembles, for, like her, his wealth has taught him that others ar e there to be used,5 Edward's surpris e at th e revelatio n b y an ex-girlfriend encountere d a t the part y that she, too, wa s closer to hi s secretary than t o hi m confirm s our feeling that Edward , despite hi s dawning recognition that somethin g is amiss in hi s life , i s in masculinis t denial of his finitude . Indeed , whe n Edward first encounter s Vivian , we realize tha t prostitutio n perfectl y models his understanding of intimate relationship: In return for cash, she is at the beck and call of her client . Recent feminis t literatur e has argued that a masculinist approach to th e world, although perhaps necessary in the publi c sphere, disables men fro m meeting the demand s of intimacy. 6 By depicting its highly successful male lead as an emotional failure, Pretty Woman associates itself with this position.

10

Pntfy Wemm

This initial sequence , then, adumbrate s th e critiqu e o f capitalism im plied i n th e film's opening line , "You know what the y say , it's al l about money," which Pretty Woman will spell out later. 7 Intercut wit h shot s o f Edward' s descen t fro m Phillip' s Beverl y Hills home to his hotel in the valley below, we are shown Vivian awakening, then descending fro m he r apartmen t to th e street s where she plies her trade . Although the point of this parallel montage is, finally, to bring Edward and Vivian together o n Hollywood Boulevard , we are convinced along the way that Vivian is in even greater need of salvation than Edward. As the camera pans along the recumbent figure of the sleeping Vivian, we notic e a number of snapshots hanging o n th e wal l nex t to he r bed . Each photo shows her with a man—but his face has been scissored out of the print. Only later do we learn that Vivian became a prostitute because she was seduced an d the n abandoned , penniless. These mutilate d snap shots already indicate that there are other element s of her life that Vivian would like to cut out. We learn more about her problems when she starts out th e doo r o f her apartment , only to overhear the landlor d askin g her neighbor fo r the rent . Discovering that her roommate and fellow prosti tute, Kit (Laura San Giacomrno), has dipped into their rent-money stash, she is forced to descend the fire escape to avoid embarrassment. Both unEkel y partners inhabit worlds from whic h they need to escape. The opulenc e of one as well as the poverty of the other will be held up to critical scrutiny . From th e outset , the fil m als o establishe s eac h a s the likely agent of the other's salvation. In Vivian s case, her agenc y amounts to this : As the film's one acknowledged whore, she will not compromis e herself a s Edward's associates do but wil l treat him a s an equal. Her very lack of guile, perhaps due, the film intimates, to her working-class back ground, contrasts sharply with the sycophancy of Edward's associates. From thei r firs t meeting , Edwar d an d Vivia n do no t behav e as one would expec t i n a typica l prostitute-clien t transaction . Shortl y afte r Vivian hit s th e streets , Edward , thoroughl y lost , spies her an d stop s hi s car. She approaches his Lotus Esprit , hoping t o score at least a hundred dollars towar d th e rent ; disappointingly, Edward i s interested onl y in di rections. Making the best of it, she demands five dollars for her information, raising the price to ten when he protests. Edwar d agree s to pay, but when he ask s for change for a twenty that h e offers her , Vivian promptly jumps into the car, grabs the bill, and puts it in her purse. For twenty dol lars, she will personall y conduct hi m t o th e Beverl y Wilshire. Vivian's spontaneity and boldnes s upse t Edward' s assumptio n that othe r huma n

Pretty WtmM 7

1

beings can be compliantly ordered about . His obviou s wealth lead s most people t o fal l al l over themselves to pleas e him. But hopin g fo r n o more from hi m than some rent money, Vivian has no reason to defer, flatter, or cajole. Stil l innocent despite he r social situation, Vivian treats Edward as an equal. In thi s initial encounter , Pretty Woman depict s thei r clas s difference a s enhancing, rather than detracting from, their interaction. Indeed, it is her very lack of deference that first allows Edward t o see in Vivian more than the youn g prostitute an d t o mov e toward a n understanding o f who sh e could b e fo r him tha t i s not limite d b y her professiona l identity. Fro m Pretty Woman's perspective , th e straightforwar d manne r of thi s street walker give s Vivian a moral authority lackin g i n Edward' s manipulative associates who scrambl e for his favor . Similarly, Edward' s treatmen t o f Vivian distinguishe s hi m fro m th e "bums" Vivian views herself as destined to attract. Even when he has only engaged her for one night, he treats her kindly—a scene that calls to mind Colonel Pickering' s gallan t treatmen t o f Eliz a Doolittle . For example, Edward's deferra l o f se x and attempt s a t conversatio n distinguis h hi m from th e averag e John. Indeed, hi s deferentia l treatmen t o f her lead s Vivian t o qui p that sh e wants to le t hi m i n o n a secret: Sh e i s a "sure thing," so he need not bother with the elaborate seductio n routine. In it s initial sequence, then, Pretty Woman give s us reason to anticipat e an interesting critical trajectory . Issues o f inequities o f wealth tha t foste r assumptions of superiority have been placed on the table. As we shall see, however, Pretty Woman is less committed to developing the critical potential o f these beginnings tha n t o showin g tha t ther e ar e ways to mitigat e their critical bite. From Flowe r Gir l t o Prostitut e Before turnin g to an analysis of Pretty Woman's strategie s of containment, I wan t to explor e prostitution' s significanc e for the film's narrative . Because the profession of flower girl was commonly used as a front for solicitation, Pygmalion's Eliz a i s constantly o n th e defensive . This is why, when she notices Higgins taking down her words as she attempts to sel l Colonel Pickering a flower, she immediately suspects him o f being a cop out t o arres t her. Her repeate d insistence—"I am a good girl , I am" 8—is meant to convey how desperate she is to dissociate hersel f from prostitu tion.

It

Pntfy Wemm

The convention s o f romantic comedy in general an d o f ascen t narra tives in particular generally require virtuous heroines. This both allow s socially superior men to be in love with the m and licenses condemnation of the injustic e that consigned the m t o thei r inferio r socia l status . Pretty Woman?, choic e t o mak e its femal e lea d a prostitute—a professio n i n which th e practitioner s see m richl y t o deserv e thei r misfortune—ma y therefore occasion surprise . To understand this choice, we need to recognize importan t difference s between th e narrativ e and representationa l structure s o f 1930 s romantic comedies and those of the post-Reagan era. As Steve Neale has argued, in the 1930s, industry censorship—the so-called Hollywood Code—an d social attitudes generally , permitted se x between unlikely partners only upon marriage, as consummation an d reward. 9 With the sexua l revolution an d the concurren t loosenin g o f the code, films of the 1980 s and 1990 s pre sent sex as a means of forging relationships rathe r tha n simpl y certifyin g them. Only afte r th e unlikel y partners hav e had se x does the questio n o f committed romance arise. This change in the function of movie sex allows Pretty Woman t o feature a prostitute a s its female lead, and because extramarital se x is no longe r proscribed , i t become s possibl e t o depic t her as virtuous, even deserving. Hence, the film retains the basic representational structure of"Pygmalion despit e Galatea' s caree r change. Vivian's response to Kit's theft of their ren t money is but one of several incidents th e film uses to establis h Vivian' s virtue. When Vivia n finally confronts her roommate about having taken the rent money, Kit confesses that th e mone y has gone fo r drugs. Vivians evident disapproval i s meant to distinguish he r fro m th e usual , morally depraved prostitute—she does not use drugs and she pays her bills. In a n interesting interpretation o f Pretty Woman, Hilary Radner stresses the comple x significance of Vivian's prostitution,10 According t o Radner, the film does not rely on a simple disjunction between Vivian's profession and he r mora l character bu t instea d present s prostitutio n a s a feminis t form o f venture capitalism : If Edwar d i s in business, s o too i s Vivian. 11 Kit's boast , "We sa y who, we sa y when, we sa y how much, " summarizes neatly her sense that th e savv y sex worker ca n control men' s desire t o he r own advantage . O n Radner' s unsentimenta l reading, th e fil m tell s th e story of how one prostitute leverage s he r "assets" int o a grand "corporat e takeover," that is, marriage to her superrich John. Despite he r insigh t int o th e narrative' s feminis t possibilities, Radne r condemns Pretty Woman's unrealisti c assessmen t o f th e situatio n o f

Pretty WtmM

73

women: In it s fantastic stor y of Vivians relationshi p wit h Edward , th e film offers the consoling illusion that such oppositions a s domesticity/sexual desire , ambition/erotic desire, and agency/objec t o f desire hav e been reconciled.12 Indeed, even its makers cannot resist an ironic aside, slipping in two sequences—one early, one late in the film-—in which a Rastafarian crossing Hollywoo d Boulevar d remind s u s that we are in "th e lan d o f dreams," This, says Radner, amounts to an admission tha t popular narra tive cinema succeeds only when i t presents a literally fantasti c reconcilia tion o f the irreconcilable. 13 In holding ou t the virtuous prostitute a s a real possibility, Pretty Woman is essentially duplicitous. Radner i s undoubtedly o n t o somethin g whe n sh e stresses the signifi cance of Vivian's prostitution, bu t there are a number of serious problems in he r explication . Fo r example , sh e overlooks th e dee p ambivalenc e o f Pretty Woman's vie w of prostitution—for whateve r th e exten t t o which i t is depicted as an empowering option , th e film also makes clear how per ilous a career choice it is. Having included a reference to the violent deat h of a sister prostitute , Skinny Marie, i n it s initia l presentatio n o f Vivian, the film unambiguously acknowledges prostitution's dangers.14 And when Vivian angrily confronts Ki t about the stupidity of squandering their rent money on drugs , he r reproach—"Don' t you want to ge t out o f here?"— implies her own desire to escape the streets. But the options availabl e to a woman i n Vivian' s situatio n see m severel y limited. Eliz a Doolittle' s lin guistic facilit y offere d he r a way out; we have yet to see how Vivian's rescue will be effected . A secon d problem fo r Radner s interpretation i s that i t ignores a n im portant plot element. When her relationship with Edward ha s progressed to the point of real intimacy, Vivian reveals how she was driven to prostitution. At th e time, turning tricks had seemed a rational choice, the only available alternative to flipping burgers. Thus, Vivian's naivete had led her first into a disastrous relationshi p an d the n ont o th e mea n street s fro m which sh e no w wants an d need s t o escape . Through thi s disclosur e we learn—and we shall soon se e just ho w central thi s i s to th e film's narrative—that Vivian's predicament is the result of having been wronged. But the mai n proble m wit h Radner' s interpretatio n is that she sees Vivian in terms very different fro m thos e i n which th e film presents her : Rather than making Vivian out to be a woman cynically using her sexuality to leverag e her socia l position , th e film depicts he r a s an innocent i n need o f rescue from dir e circumstances. In th e end , then, and despite he r acknowledgment of the importance o f the Cinderella subtext , Radner fail s

?4

Pntfy Wemm

to give sufficient weight to how that classic fairy tale determines the film's narrative and representational strategies. "Cinderella" a s a Ta b » f Mora l Rectificatio n "Cinderella" i s the stor y of a young woman's sudden rise from drudge t o princess.15 More to th e point , Cinderella's heady social ascen t rectifies a grievous moral wrong inflicted on a n innocent. Although sh e is the bio logical daughter o f their stepfather, her stepsisters, in collusion wit h thei r mother, cruell y reduce he r t o servitude . Bu t when th e Princ e choose s Cinderella t o b e hi s bride , sh e i s at onc e elevate d abov e al l the othe r women in the kingdom. We enjoy her elevation because she had been th e victim o f a n injustice , an d i n redressin g th e wrong s Cinderella ha s suffered, th e tal e reassures us that th e univers e is just an d that , i n the end , one gets what one deserves. Although Cinderella' s fantasti c ris e ma y be rea d as a condemnation of class domination, it i s actually less a criticism o f hierarchy per s e than of those wh o enjo y position s o f social privilege undeservedly—fo r example , Cinderella's maliciou s steprelatives. In othe r words, hierarchy is justified so long as those at the top, like Princess Cinderella, really deserve to be there. "Cinderella"'s legitimation o f hierarchy depends o n its validation of the idea of society as a meritocracy, in this case a moral meritocracy in which class position i s a reflection of character, with the virtuous entitled t o rule their moral inferiors. The divisio n of society into two (or more) classes is claimed to follow from paralle l moral distinctions amon g individuals.16 Initially, however, the world of "Cinderella " seems, if anything, to stand the ideal of a morally just universe on its head. True, the female characters in thi s story divide neatl y into th e good—Cinderell a an d he r mother — and the wicked—her stepmother an d stepsisters—but their relationship is an inversion of the meritocrati c ideal, for here the wicked rule the good . Thus, Cinderella's househol d resemble s that topsy-turvy world famousl y described b y Hegel rather than the satisfyingly meritocratic one proposed as an ideal: "That what i n th e la w of the first world i s sweet, in thi s in verted in-itsel f is sour, what in the forme r i s black is, in the other, whit e . . . What is there south pole is here north pole." 17 Hegel's metaphor i s of a world i n which th e natura l order o f things ha s been violated , an d by analogy, Cinderella's househol d i s the inverte d worl d i n relatio n t o th e ideal o f mora l meritocracy . Instea d o f being rewarde d fo r he r virtue , Cinderella has been indentured to her cruel and malicious steprelatives.

Pretty WtmM

75

To align Cinderella's class position with her moral standing, thereby repairing society' s mora l fabric, a n inversion of this firs t inversio n wil l be necessary: Cinderella's sufferin g mus t be compensated, and he r evil stepfamily appropriately punished. For this reason, the story's criticisms of hierarchy attack onl y those wh o enjo y th e privilege s o f rank undeservedly, not the injustice of social ranking itself. Two agent s effec t th e necessar y rectification of the inverte d world o f this fairy tale. First, there is Cinderella's dea d mother, who has the ability to ac t through a charmed nature. It i s her intervention tha t brings abou t Cinderella's transformatio n from charwoma n to th e elegan t beaut y her parentage has destined her to be. Then, of course, there is the Prince himself, for it is his love for Cinderella that gives sanction and permanence to that transformation. Through the interventio n o f her dead mother , Cinderella's appearance has bee n mad e to correspon d wit h he r virtue. When Kan t claimed tha t the beautiful was the symbol of the moral, he surely did not have in mind this folktale. 18 Nonetheless , i t is precisely this relation that both explains the Prince' s choic e of Cinderella t o be his bride an d the meanin g of his choice. But if it is Cinderella's beaut y that attracts the Prince and fits her to be his wife, that beauty is not simpl y surface, it is also—and more im portantly—a signifier of moral worth. Nor doe s Cinderella' s beaut y indicat e he r socia l clas s to the Prince . Despite Cinderella's glamour, the fair y tal e is quite clear on this. And be cause the Prince's choic e of Cinderella to be his bride is not shaken by the fact that when he does find her, she is, to all appearances, a simple servant girl, the story has seemed to many to be democratic in spirit. But doe s th e lost-slippe r stratage m reall y establish this ? True, once Cinderella ha s fled the ball , havin g left th e famou s glas s slipper behind , the only clue to her identity is her dainty shoe size. The Princ e announces that h e will marr y the woma n whose foo t fits that slipper , an d nothin g else about Cinderella will count for him, not eve n her lowly station. Th e significance o f this egalitarian momen t needs to be contextualized within the larger scheme of moral rectification, however. Feminist readers have bristled at the fairy tale's equation of physical appearance with mora l character. This imputation i s as true o f Cinderella , whose virtue is affirmed righ t dow n to her tiny toes, as it is of her stepsis ters, who, out of greed, mutilate their big feet to force them into the glass slipper. Aside fro m th e obviou s empirical inadequacy of this equation, i t presupposes tha t a woman's beauty is a natural and not a social fact abou t

76 Pntfy

Wemm

her. The siz e of a persons foo t is not—with certai n exceptions— a socia l fact a t all; rather, it is a physical attribute, th e outcome of the genetic lot tery. By allegorizing character as physical characteristi c an d then treatin g it a s a rationale fo r social hierarchy , the fair y tal e make s the well-know n conflation o f the socia l with th e natural . Standards o f beauty are clearly socially determined, a s any film viewer ought to know. With the rise and fall o f its characters in accordanc e with thei r mora l deserts, "Cinderella"'s narrative of rectification reestablishes society' s dis turbed mora l equilibrium. The lov e of a prince for a serving girl turns the inverted world of this fair y tale right-sid e up , Cinderella wil l come at last to occup y that socia l positio n t o whic h he r virtu e entitle s her , a s her wicked stepsister s wil l foreve r hobbl e about , punished fo r thei r wicked ways. In a world in which hierarchy is unquestioned or at least is felt to be insurmountable, moral meritocracy appears as the only antidote to injustice. Because social power can be used to reward the good and punish the evil, rule b y the bes t seem s require d t o satisf y ou r hunge r fo r justice. We ar e reconciled t o the existence of social hierarchy because it promises repara tion fo r th e wrong s inflicte d o n us . Afte r all , fro m wher e els e i n "Cinderella"'s moral universe but th e castl e can the wrongs she suffers b e redressed? The infantil e pleasure we take i n this fabl e o f moral rectification stern s fro m thi s reassurance . At th e sam e time, our enjoymen t suffuses hierarch y with a positive glow: Dazzled, we acquiesce to a representational schem e in which privilege i s self-evidendy virtue's reward. Shopping Espri t Now that we are ready to look more closely at Pretty Woman, we will find, not surprisingly, that the trope of moral rectification dulls the critical sting of this film's ascent narrative. In thi s section , I propose a n interpretatio n of three shoppin g episodes that , take n together , at once prepar e the way for Vivian' s final triumph an d rehearse in miniature, as it were, the drama of moral rectification that animate s the film as a whole. A close reading of these sequence s establishe s th e comple x mechanic s tha t permi t Pretty Woman t o dam n Edward' s wealth y milie u ye t celebrat e th e munificen t powers o f hi s ow n male , moneyed privilege . Specifically , Pretty Woman's vindication o f wealt h turn s o n it s us e o f women' s beaut y a s reveale d through/constituted by fashion operating a s a perceptual marker of naturalized clas s difference . It i s this chai n o f significations tha t justifies

Pretty WtmM

11

Vivians ascendancy over the shallow "suck-ups" Edward—and the film— despises. The first of these shopping sequence s takes place on the morning afte r Vivian and Edward spend their inaugural night together i n his penthouse suite at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. Vivian has just received a large sum of money from Edwar d t o buy the clothe s sh e will need a s his companion . Still wearin g her work uniform—hot pant s an d high boots—an d t o th e sound of the song "Wild Women," Vivian enters a chic Rodeo Drive dress shop (se e Photo 4.1) . Bu t a disdainful saleswoman virtually throws he r out th e door , telling th e astounde d Vivian , "I don't thin k we have anything fo r you . You'r e obviousl y i n th e wron g place . Pleas e leave. " Streetwalkers ar e clearly unwelcome i n thi s smar t boutique, neve r mind the fistful of dollars Vivian brandishes. Her appearance—th e very outfi t she wishes to replace—flag s he r as an unacceptable customer, her money notwithstanding.w This scen e demonstrates tha t mor e ma y be a t stak e in shoppin g i n a capitalist societ y tha n simpl e satisfaction of basic human needs. Indeed , we might say that a s a potent determinan t of class identity, shopping has ontological significance. And thi s i s especially tru e o f fashion, since th e clothes we buy not only cover our nakedness, they supply others with th e signs the y nee d to rea d that identity fro m ou r appearance . S o as Vivian enters th e Rode o Driv e boutique , class boundaries ar e being breached . And i t behooves th e sale s staff, actin g a s a sort of social border patrol, t o resolve th e contradictio n betwee n Vivian' s sluttish appearanc e an d he r presence in their exclusive store by refusing to serve her. This scen e disrupt s an y straightforward identification o f class wit h money. In America , money is supposed t o be the grea t equalizer—if you have it , yo u ca n bu y whatever you want, an d you r money is a s good a s anyone else's . I t i s this deepl y held fait h i n th e democrac y of the dolla r that Vivian's ejection violates. For the saleswoman who ejects her, it is not enough t o hav e the money , one mus t deserv e t o hav e it, or mor e accu rately, one must be seen to deserve it. This attitude is strangely analogous to the hereditarianism of the British aristocracy : Some people ar e by nature bette r tha n other s an d s o deserve thei r privilege . Fo r an America n woman, it is her physical appearance rather than her pedigree that counts. It i s at just this point tha t th e film begins to deflect our expectations of a critiqu e o f class condescension, indeed, o f clas s itself: Vivian will b e shown t o b e s o beautiful tha t she deserves to sho p o n Rode o Drive . In "Cinderella"^ mora l universe, a woman's appearanc e is a register o f he r

n

Pntfy Wemm

Photo 4. 1 Vivia n attempt s to slo p a n Rode o Driv e

character, henc e a measur e o f he r entitlement. According t o Pretty Woman, th e proble m with America n society i s not it s class divisions, bu t the basis on which they rest.20 The film continues its presentation o f the socia l and moral significance of shopping i n a sequence that occur s afte r Bernar d Thompson (Hecto r Elizondo), the manager of the Beverly Wilshire intercedes on Vivian's behalf when sh e has returned, distraught, fro m he r first venture on Rode o Drive. Thompson, playin g th e rol e o f Vivian' s fair y godfather , call s a friend a t a second boutique an d explains Vivians situation to her. As a result, when Vivia n arrives, she i s treated courteousl y an d purchase s th e dress she needs. The payof f occurs in the followin g scene, when Edwar d return s to th e hotel to pick up Vivian, who is to accompany him to an important dinne r with th e Morses . H e enter s the bar where sh e is supposed t o be waitin g and looks aroun d but doe s no t se e her. There next follows a long sho t of Edward walkin g up to th e bar , then a cut t o a medium sho t take n fro m behind a s he vainl y searche s th e room . No w th e camer a retreat s onc e again to a long shot in which we see Edward turnin g to leave, and behind Edward's back, that the woman sitting at the bar in an elegant black cock tail dress is Vivian. As Edward completes his turn, the camera records his recognition o f Vivian by abruptly bringing her into focus (se e Photo 4.2) . The effec t o f this recognitio n i s then emphasize d i n a series of shot /

Pretty WtmM

19

reverse shot closeup s of them simultaneousl y noticin g on e anothe r an d noticing their noticing . Sh e walks up to him, says, "You're late," to which he responds, "You're stunning." Her reply—"You'r e forgiven"—ends thei r interaction a s they leave the bar arm and arm, the perfect couple. In narrativ e terms, this scen e begins t o assuage the humiliatio n Vivian suffered o n Rode o Drive . Edward' s appreciatio n o f her beaut y confirm s the transfigurative power of shopping; The little black dress reveals Vivian to be the woman adequate to this man's desire. The thir d an d final shopping sequence will complete the process of reparation. Before w e succumb to th e pleasure s the film has planned fo r us, however, the antidemocrati c iron y in Vivian' s succes s needs t o b e remarked : She is entitled t o sho p i n Rode o Drive' s exclusiv e boutiques because she looks so good in the clothe s the y sell. Why, they look a s if they had bee n designed fo r her—as, of course, the y had . Indeed, th e film suggests tha t Vivian/Cinderella ha s more righ t t o sho p ther e tha n man y of the rich women wh o d o s o a s a matte r o f course . The implicatio n an d centra l claim o f thi s sequence , then, i s that, by nature, Vivian deserves t o b e wealthy. A serie s of equivalences establishes Vivian' s right t o class elevation, its visual crux being that Vivian's beauty evidently fits her to wear the kind of clothing sol d i n exclusiv e and trend y shops. Rode o Driv e chi c is not fo r every woman, an d thos e whom i t suit s ar e only those who m i t makes beautiful.21 Bu t femal e beaut y is not a simple matte r o f appearance , ac cording to th e film, for those who, like Vivian, are truly beautiful deserve to acquire and wear the clothes tha t display their beauty. Pretty Woman thu s attempt s t o convinc e u s of Vivians just desert s b y means of a subtle visual strategy. First, her beauty is presented a s a sign of individual merit; then , sinc e clothes encod e class , the fac t tha t expensiv e fashions sui t her beauty establishes her right to wear them; this means, finally, that Vivian deserve s to be wealthy, for beauty is the "natural " basis for femal e socia l privilege. This analysis makes it clear why it is misleading to speak of a transformation of Vivian's character. More accurately, the film depicts th e proces s throug h whic h Vivian' s true bu t implici t upper class identity is revealed, or brought forth. 22 By using Vivian's beauty a s a marker of her worthines s fo r a class up grade, th e fil m take s a very differen t vie w o f hierarch y fro m tha t o f Pygmalion. Where the earlie r film saw Eliza's abilit y to pass as a duchess as evidence tha t ther e was no natura l basis to clas s distinctions, Vivian' s success identifies her as a member of an authentic upper class, from whic h

80 Pntfy

Wemm

Photo 4.2 Edward finally recognizes Vivian

impostors deserv e t o be excluded. Thus, rather tha n pursu e the demo cratic implications o f its unmaskin g of the pretensio n o f the capitalis t elite, Pretty Woman suggest s a n alternativ e foundation for class privilege, one that rests on character and its visual correlate in women of beauty and that facilitates reparation of the wrongs Vivian has suffered. 23 That this really is Pretty Woman's vie w of class becomes fully evident in Vivians third an d final shopping expedition, which takes place on the day following he r humiliation . Edwar d expresse s surpris e tha t Vivia n has bought s o few clothes with the mone y given her. She complains that sh e did not find shopping much fun because the salespeople treated he r badly; "They were mean to me. " Edward respond s cynically , "Stores ar e never nice to people. They're nice to credit cards." Edward no w take s Vivia n t o stil l a thir d Rode o Driv e boutique . Although hi s ostensible goal is to finish outfitting her for the part she is to play as his companion, he has a deeper purpose i n mind as well: Edward wants her to gain a greater sense of self-worth from being catered to, hand and foot , by the salespeopl e i n this store. To this end, Edward call s over Mr. Hollister, the stor e manager, and tells him point-blank tha t they "are going to be spending an obscene amount of money" and that they will require a lot of people "sucking up" to them because that is what they enjoy. What a difference a day makes! With at least four people attendin g her , Vivian greatly enjoys tryin g o n differen t outfits . Her pleasur e is empha-

Pretty WtmM t

l

sized b y the strain s of Roy Orbison's hi t song—an d th e film's anthem— "Pretty Woman, " which accompanies her throughout th e res t of this se quence. She ha s now become the prett y woman of the song' s title . (Th e song tells of a man's fantasy that an attractive woman he sees on the street does not simpl y pass him by but actuall y turns around and walks back to him. Vivian now qualifies a s the sor t o f woman about whom a man can have this fantasy,) 24 Vivian leaves the stor e wearing a new white dress, high heels , and lon g white gloves, her appearanc e so completely transforme d that i t actuall y registers in her bodily comportment. Althoug h th e film does no t thematize this , she no w carries hersel f wit h greate r composur e an d restrain t than she did when dressed as a hooker. Men tur n to look at her, but when they do, they are no longer allowe d the leering gaze of unmediated sexual desire permitte d the m whe n sh e first entered th e hote l wit h Edward . Instead, Vivian, ex-"wild woman," has now become "pretty woman," that is, her expensive and tasteful attir e sublimates her sexuality in conformity with high-bourgeois standard s (see Photo 4.3) . One las t bit o f business remains in thi s minidram a o f moral rectification. Vivian now returns to th e stor e i n which sh e was demeaned, find s the offendin g saleswoman , and remind s he r o f their earlier encounter . After assurin g hersel f tha t th e woma n work s o n commission , Vivian flaunts the packages she is carrying, and jeers, "Big mistake. Big. Huge. I have t o g o shoppin g now. " The scen e end s wit h Vivia n collapse d i n a stuffed chai r in her hotel room, a self-satisfied smile on her face . Vivian's slight ha s been redressed an d the film expects us to participate in he r triump h by accepting i t a s simple justice^her da y and our s has been made. 25 But to see Vivian's new wardrobe as quite the victory for her the film claims, we need to endorse its "Cinderella" premise that class distinctions have moral significance. Pygmalion's narrativ e of class ascent condemned England' s clas s struc ture. Pretty Woman's onl y complains that American society privileges th e wrong people . This fabl e o f transfiguratio n by shopping spre e pretends that there are those who by nature are entitled: Vivian's beauty, revealed by her flair for high fashion , justifies he r membership in this authenti c elite; other women—usurpers—lac k he r natura l beauty and onl y wear expensive clothes because they can afford them. 26 Vivian now possesses a wardrobe that permits her beauty to emerge, but she is still a prostitute. The greate r injustic e tha t propelled he r onto th e streets will only truly be rectified once she has been anointed , Cinderella -

82

Pntfy Wemm

Photo 4.1 "Pretty Woman" on Rodeo (riv e

like, the partner of her wealthy prince. There still are some important ob stacles to be overcome if her inverted world is to be righted, not the least of which is Edward's masculinis t arrogance. He require s a transformation more fundamental than Vivian's before this fairy tale reaches its inevitable happy conclusion,

Oedipus in the Boardroom Whereas Vivian' s transformatio n happens o n Rode o Drive , Edward's takes place in his suite at the Beverl y Wilshire. Edward comes to recognize tha t hi s workaholism stem s fro m unresolve d Oedipa l issues . And once having acknowledged the source s of his compulsions, he embraces a "kinder, gentler" path t o capitalist accumulation , one that allows the film to deflect its critique of wealth per se onto a critique of "destructive" form s of its pursuit. As Vivian's relationship wit h Edwar d develop s fro m a one-night stan d into a weeklong relationship, th e tw o of them becom e mor e intimate . Nestled betwee n her long leg s in his suite's Jacuzzi, Edward reveal s that the satisfactions corporate raidin g bring him have their roots in childhoo d trauma. His fathe r deserted hi s mother fo r another woman and left the m destitute. Eve r since , Edwar d ha s been engage d i n hi s own projec t o f moral rectification , symbolically punishing hi s deadbeat da d b y bestin g

Pretty WtmM

83

father surrogates in corporate combat. Edward is now locked into an endless cycle of repetition—his satisfaction short-lived—acquiring new companies agains t th e wishe s o f owner/fathe r figure s lik e James Morse . Indeed, the third victim of Edward's professional spite was his own father! Early on, Vivian is confused abou t what Edwar d actuall y does, takin g him for a lawyer. When he explains his work to her, she compares him t o her high school friends who stole cars, "chopped" them, and sold the parts for cash , exactly the proces s to which Edwar d subject s the companie s he acquires. Implicit i n thi s compariso n is a negative judgment—stripping corporate asset s is a s destructive, henc e as immoral, a s stripping stole n cars. Initially annoye d at the naivet e of Vivian's comparison, Edwar d finally comes t o shar e her assessment . This shif t i s registered afte r th e Morse s have angril y walked awa y from th e dinne r meetin g wit h Edwar d fo r which Vivian had bought he r outfit. Shaken by their disgust at his tactics, Edward realizes , a s he put s i t t o Vivian , "We bot h scre w peopl e fo r money."27 The narrativ e significance o f this scen e lies in it s embrac e of Vivian's apparently naive distinction between productive and unproductive activities: Dismantlin g corporation s fo r profi t i s no w viewed a s destructive . Where th e film had earlier endorsed Edward' s dismissal of this evaluative dichotomy, it is here rehabilitated throug h his act of self-recognition, Edward expresse s his acceptanc e o f this valuatio n i n a conversatio n with Phillip . Now poised t o achiev e his goal—he can sin k the loa n th e Morses need to fight his takeover—Edward hesitates to do so. While idly constructing a tower o f drinking glasses , he explain s to th e disbelievin g Phillip that as a child, he loved building things. The implicatio n is that he ought t o b e satisfyin g thi s matur e desire, literally creatin g something, as do the Morses, who build destroyers for the Navy. Edward decide s t o bac k awa y fro m th e deal , then, because he realize s that the Morses' determination to fight for control of their company has a worthier sourc e than his desire to acquire it. Whereas h e is driven by an Oedipal will-to-power, the y are engaged in running a socially useful, pro ductive enterprise. Although th e film's choice of arms manufacture a s its example o f productive activit y seems a disingenuous hin t b y its makers that th e distinctio n betwee n productive an d destructive activit y cannot withstand critica l scrutiny , we need to understan d exactly why a morally principled distinctio n betwee n corporat e raidin g an d runnin g a famil y firm is unsustainable.

84

Pntfy Wemm

To begin with, the films portrayal of the Morses a s major players in the defense industr y i s implausible. Any fir m wit h majo r Departmen t o f Defense contracts , as Morse Industries is alleged t o have, cannot be family owned, for, as Torn Riddell already pointed ou t in 1985, "Defense con tracting for the last twenty-five years has been concentrated in the larges t firms."28 The sort s o f players he ha d i n min d wer e Lockheed , Boeing , United Technologies , McDonnel l Douglas , an d Grumman , th e five largest defens e contractors in 1975. 29 Although a mom-and-pop or , in this case, pop-and-son operation migh t have a role as a minor subcontrac tor in the defense industry, no such firm could possibly go toe to toe with the multinationals and win. The film resorts to such an unrealistic option because it wants to do two things: on the one hand, endorse the growing critique of the Reaga n era's vast increase in inequitie s i n wealth; and on the other , contain th e scop e o f that critique , applyin g it onl y to th e excesses of that er a rather than to the existence of wealth and social hierar chy per se. To succeed at this balancing act, the film has to exhume an acceptable alternativ e t o th e corporat e raide r t o stan d a s the sig n o f th e kinder, gentler nation America seemed to hope it could become. James Morse ma y be the longed-for good father , but h e can hardly figure a s the mode l capitalist for the 1990s ; instead, he represents nostalgia for a n economic era that is long since past and—to those o f us who hav e read Dickens , never mind Marx—was alway s morall y problematic, anyway. Bu t because Pretty Woman refract s its economic options through vulgar Freudianism—rebelliou s so n i s reconciled t o th e rul e o f benign fa ther—we ignor e th e bogu s economics , rejoicing at Edward' s successfu l resolution of his Oedipal travails and accepting, along the way , the terms of the film's portrayal.

A Happ y Endin g Taken together , Pretty Woman's shoppin g sequences—fro m Vivian' s hu miliation t o he r fina l ac t of vengeance—enact, on a reduced scale, th e trope of moral rectification that structure s the film's overall narrative development. Edward's choice of Vivian to be his bride completes the repa ration of the wrongs that had led her to a life on the streets. To the extent that we thrill a t th e tightnes s o f this fairy-tal e ending, w e accept th e film's brief fo r hierarch y as the necessar y price fo r the fulfillmen t o f our desires. Edward's decision i s precipitated b y the final crisis that occurs once he has agree d t o work with, rather tha n against , th e Morses . Having con -

Pretty WtmM t

$

eluded hi s business in California, Edward make s Vivian an offer h e con siders very generous: to set her up as his mistress in Beverly Hills, Vivian responds that she might have accepted suc h an offer a week earlier, but n o longer.30 Sh e explains her reactio n b y recalling tha t a s a child, whenever her mother would loc k he r in a closet—a form of punishment worthy of Cinderella's stepmothe r an d bringing wit h i t its own demand for repara tion—she would dream she had been transformed into a princess awaiting rescue fro m he r confinemen t by a dashing knigh t o n horseback . When she demands the fulfillment o f this dream, Edward balks , unable to bring himself to acknowledge her as his equal. Not t o worry, though, for , echoing th e openin g scene s o f the film, a closing paralle l montag e sequenc e brings the two together, this time for keeps. But first , he r knigh t havin g momentarily faile d her , Vivia n leave s th e hotel, determined no t t o retur n t o th e street . With th e mone y she has earned during her week as Edward's escort, sh e now has the wherewitha l to transfor m her life . Packing t o leave for Sa n Francisco, Vivian tells Ki t that she intends t o pursue her education . Meanwhile, Edwar d i s brought t o acknowledg e hi s nee d fo r Vivian through th e agenc y of Bernard Thompson, wh o onc e agai n functions a s her fair y godfather . As Edward pay s his hotel bill, h e asks Thompson t o return th e necklac e tha t h e ha d borrowe d fo r Vivia n t o wea r t o La Traviata.31 Admiring th e necklace, Thompson remarks, "It must be diffi cult t o le t g o of something s o beautiful." And i n cas e the audienc e ha s missed his double entendre, he adds that the same driver who will be tak ing Edward to the airport ha d driven Vivian home the day before. Thompson's intervention prepare s the way for the film's fairy-tale ending, which enacts Vivian's dream: Edward race s to her rescue in his trusty sunroofed limousine , determined t o scal e th e tenement/towe r i n whic h his princes s i s held captive . But t o reac h her , Edwar d mus t overcome a fear of heights an d climb the fire escape ladder she had earlier descended to avoi d he r landlord. Whe n finally he ha s met th e challenge—knee s trembling an d rose s gripped betwee n hi s teeth—Edwar d find s himsel f uncertain o f his nex t move . Turning t o Vivian—th e exper t o n he r own dreams—he ask s fo r guidance : "So what happene d afte r h e climbe d th e tower an d rescue d her?" Her response—"Sh e rescued him righ t back" — registers the film's contemporaneity. Knights and princesses are now codependent. A s she and Edwar d embrac e hig h ato p th e fire escape, Vivian's social elevation is accomplished. With the fulfillment o f her dream, we are assured of the possibilit y tha t th e damage d chil d withi n eac h o f us may someday receive redress for our suffering .

86 Pntfy

Wemm

But to experience these pleasures, we need to accept the terms in which they are presented, ignoring the deepe r issue , put o n th e tabl e by Pretty Woman itself , o f whether inequalitie s in wealth ar e merited. If th e fil m succeeds in moving us, it is only by deflecting our attention from tha t very question. In confining its narrative of class ascent within a drama of moral rectification, Pretty Woman succeeds in containing the critical potential of its own premise,

Notes 1. Bellamy's presence—he played the inappropriat e mal e partner in such films as The Awful Truth (1937) and His Girl Friday (1940)—als o serves to evok e th e world of 1930s comedies. 2. See, for example, Ron Grover , The Disney Touch: Disney, ABC, and the Quest for the World's Greatest Media Empire (Chicago: Irwin, 1997), pp. 221-224. 3. Terry Gross's interview with Barry Primus, Fresh Air, August 27,1992. 4. Evidence o f the impac t of Pretty Woman?, ascen t narrative ca n be seen in a story abou t Slavi c women becomin g prostitute s (New York Times, January 11 , 1998, pp . 1 , 6). The fil m i s cited a s a factor in women' s willingness t o becom e prostitutes. 5. Although th e film's early scenes represent Edwar d i n much the sam e terms as It Happened One Night represent s Ellie , the late r Oedipa l narrative of his father's desertion suggests that he cannot be as inexperienced and sheltered a s these scenes suggest . Here, the momentar y demands of the narrativ e seem t o over whelm the makers' desire for consistency. 6. See , fo r example , Nanc y Chodorow , The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (Berkeley : Universit y o f Californi a Press, 1978). 7. All quotation s fro m Pretty Woman ar e fro m m y transcription o f th e soun d track. 8. See , fo r example , The Collected Screenplays of Bernard Sha<w, Bernar d F . Dukore, ed. (Athens: University of Georgia Press , 1980), p. 229. 9. See Steve Neale's interesting discussion o f the development of film comedy, "The Bi g Romance or Something Wild? : Romantic Comedy Today," Screen, 33: 3 (Autumn 1992) : pp. 284-299. 10. Hilary Radner , "Pretty Is as Pretty Does: Free Enterprise an d the Marriage Plot," in Film Theory Goes to the Movies, Jim Collins , Hilary Radner , an d Av a Preacher Coffins , eds. (New York: Routledge, 1993) , pp. 56-76. 11. Radner ("Pretty Is as Pretty Does") treat s this equation literall y rather than metaphorically. 12. The illusio n i s that i t is possible t o simultaneously satisfy tw o criteria tha t are articulated a s mutually exclusive. So, for example, a woman canno t fulfil l th e roles of homemaker and sexual partner at the same time.

Ptttff WtmM

81

13. Thus, despit e he r attentio n t o th e economi c aspect s of th e narrative , Radnor's critique of the film involves the Lacanian-inspire d claim that narrative film dwells in infantile fantasy. 14. Radner admits that Skinny Marie's murder shows the dangers of prostitution. She sees this aspect of the narrativ e only as a cautionary tale, however, one that shows "what happens when a young woman invests her capital unwisely," not as a criticism o f prostitution itsel f ("Pretty Is as Pretty Does," p. 66). 15. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, The Complete Grimm's [sic. ] Fairy Tales (New York Pantheon Books, 1944), pp. 121-128. 16. It i s not a t al l obvious that mora l meritocrac y implies rigid clas s distinc tions. There migh t b e man y differences i n individua l moral meri t tha t a class structure would not reflect . 17. G. W . F . Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, A . V , Miller, tr , (Oxford , UK : Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 97. 18. Kant makes this clai m i n th e Critique of Judgment, Werne r S . Pluhar, tr . (Indianapolis, IN, and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishers, 1987), §59 . 19. It is worth noting that clothes are not the only means used to encode socia l location. Vivian's bodily comportment function s a s another signifie r o f class. In early scenes, she gestures wildly, throwing her limbs about in a way that indicates lack of refinement. Her chi c waxdrobe brings with i t greater restrain t in the way she carries herself. 20. If women's class privilege is based on beauty, what justifies mal e privilege? An obviou s option i s that wealth function s as beauty's male analogue. We shal l see how th e fil m resolve s th e conflic t betwee n thi s vie w an d it s critiqu e o f Edward's amoral pursuit of wealth. 21. Among othe r options , women's clothes can be stylish o r trashy, as Vivian's two outfits make clear. Radnor's equation of these two styles with voyeurism and fetishism, respectively , misses the film' s us e o f beauty as a marker of characte r ("Pretty Is as Pretty Does"). Interestingly, more recent fashions—especially thos e designed b y the lat e Giann i Versace-—deconstruc t th e oppositio n betwee n hig h style and whorish. 22. A similar point i s made by Robert Lapsle y and Michael Westlake, "Fro m Casablanca t o Pretty Woman: The Politic s o f Romance, " Screen, 33: 1 (Sprin g 1992): pp. 27-49. 23. Pretty Woman, like Henry Higgin s i n Pygmalion, thu s support s hierarchy, although o n a different basi s from th e on e prevalent in their respectiv e societies : Higgins endorse s a hierarchy based o n knowledge rathe r tha n blood, and Pretty Woman, one based on character rather than wealth alone. The differenc e between the films is that the earlier film criticizes Higgins for his acceptance of hierarchy, a narrative element missing from th e later one. 24. Grover reports that the film's association with the Orbison son g was coincidental. See The Disney Touch, p. 224.

88

Pntfy Wemm

25. When Vivia n lord s it over the saleswoma n who slighte d her , we may not endorse th e momen t as folly as the fil m wishes , for Vivian is here being cruel , sadistic. We may wonder why it is not enough for her to be appreciated by others, why she has to stick her success in her tormentor's face . 26. It i s too simple to say that the film represents beauty as a class marker for women an d wealth a s a class marker for men. Edward's good looks are also im portant t o th e film's representational strategy. It i s also wort h repeatin g tha t beauty, although base d in biological characteristics, is a socially constructed norm that varies from societ y to society and even within social groups. 27. Both Radne r ("Pretty Is as Pretty Does") and Kathleen Rowe (The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter [Austin : Universit y of Texas Press , 1995], p. 198) simpl y accept Edward's cynical equation of his and Vivian's professions without criticism , a fact tha t betrays the limitations in their understanding of the film. Although hi s pun is meant to register both hi s growing identification of himself an d Vivia n as well a s his increasin g dissatisfactio n with hi s work, it succeeds onl y through a confusion o f the litera l an d th e symbolic . Althoug h Edward's ironic identificatio n of himself as a prostitute allow s him t o condemn his own profession symbolically, he simultaneously degrades Vivian's through hi s conflation o f the literal and the symbolic meanings of screwing. There are several issues about prostitution and the film's portrayal of it that I am sidestepping here and that would have to be raised in a complete discussion of this film. In particular, th e question of whether prostitution i s a form of sexual exploitation is left unexamined. 28. Tom Riddell , "Concentration an d Inefficienc y in th e Defens e Sector : Policy Options" Journal of Economic Issues, 19:2 (June 1985): p. 452 . 29. To m Gervasi , America's War Machine: The Pursuit of Global Dominance (New York : Grove Press , 1984) , p . 332 . Th e recen t merge r o f Boein g an d McDonnell Dougla s has reduced this number to four. 30. There i s a further reaso n fo r Vivian's demand—to reassur e the audienc e that her interest in Edward is not motivated by his wealth. Vivian's unwillingness to accep t Edward' s mone y on hi s terms establishe s th e purit y o f her desir e for him. 31. Pretty Woman uses a number of techniques to equate Vivian with Violetta, including having Vivian cry as she watches La Traviata. But Violetta's self-sacri fice for th e love of another has no parallel in Vivian's story and may be a trace of the original, tragic screenplay.

$

White Palace

Dustbuster Epiphanie s

Although White Palace, too, is concerned with issues of class and gender, Luis Mandoki's 199 0 fil m focuse s a s well on difference s o f religion an d age. Thi s mi x of obstacles confrontin g its unlikel y couple complicate s the film's socially critical labors beyond what we have already seen. These self-imposed burdens aside, White Palaces real uniqueness as an instance o f th e genr e lie s i n th e wa y it s critiqu e i s conveyed—les s through persona l transformation, as in the othe r films so far considered, than through th e vicissitudes o f the unlikely relationship itself. Because the mal e partner ha s internalize d th e value s of hi s referenc e grou p o f young urba n professionals—infamousl y acronyme d "yuppies" i n th e 1980s—he canno t unambivalentl y accept a romantic attachmen t tha t conflicts with the group's partnerin g norms . As a result, to keep his unlikely relationship totall y hidden fro m hi s peers, he is shown repeatedl y dissembling. The fil m censure s him—and by extension, hi s socia l mi lieu—for affirmin g value s that woul d proscrib e so vital a relationship . Dazzled b y surfaces, they are blind t o th e deepe r an d mor e significant realities concealed beneath . In Pygmalion, It Happened One Night, and Pretty Woman, th e romantic couple is achieved through th e eliminatio n o f the socia l difference(s) be tween th e partners . White Palace suggests , t o th e contrar y an d interest ingly, that thes e difference s ar e precisely what mak e their connectio n s o significant for its lovers. The ver y unlikeliness of their attraction liberates the partners from socia l norms that stultify passion and so defeat the pos sibility o f a life live d mor e authentically . Although b y no mean s a great film, White Palaces innovativ e presentatio n o f th e positiv e rol e tha t

89

90

White Mate

difference ca n play in the lives of individuals and, by implication, societies heightens its claim on our interest.

An Overdctermined Unlikeliness The tens e drama between the partners' attractio n t o one another and the conventions tha t stigmatiz e i t a s unlikely exists primaril y i n th e con sciousness of White Palaces, male protagonist, Ma x Baron (James Spader). Max i s torn betwee n th e conformis t pressure to accep t his social group's verdict on Nor a Bake r (Susan Sarandon) an d hi s awarenes s that Nora' s gift o f intimacy has reawakened his deadened spirit . When Max' s nou veau rich e Jewish friend s dismis s Nora—a n older , working-class, non Jewish "shiksa"—a s unfi t t o partne r th e handsome , young executive, i t threatens t o overwhel m his hitherto throttled desire to live his life mor e fully and more deeply. Max, a yuppie adman, earns lots of money, a fact mad e obvious during the titl e sequence, as we see him drivin g his new Volvo to his home in a swanky apartment complex , having picked u p o n th e wa y a number of identical, freshly dry-cleane d an d pressed suits , Nora i s a waitress at th e White Palace, the fast-foo d join t fro m whic h th e film takes its title. Her ramshackle house , in which sh e later seduce s Max , starkl y conveys th e economic gulf between them . A secon d gulf separating Max fro m Nor a is age. Although a widower, Max is only twenty-seven, thus a "young" man. At forty-one, Nora is past the ag e when women are normally judged desirable , a fact registered , fo r example, by Max's mother when she remarks on first meeting Nora, "She's no spring chicken." Of course , thi s ag e difference i s an obstacle t o thei r romance only because of certain gender stereotypes , stereotype s tha t th e film mobilizes . Wer e thei r age s reversed—he , forty-one , say ; and she , twenty-seven—few eyebrows would be raised.1 Finally, Max i s Jewish; and Nora , a lapsed Catholic, a difference actu ally more complex than i s conveyed by this simpl e statement. For if religious faith i s important t o neither, the fac t o f Max's Jewishness is significant because it defines bis social milieu. Their religious difference, then , is really a synecdoche for a more general difference i n the rol e other peopl e play in their lives. Nora is portrayed as virtually asocial. The onl y relationships we are shown are with the bartender in the bar where she encounters Max, a black coworker with who m sh e rides the bus , and a sister fro m

White Ptltet

91

Pbte 5. 1 Tie yippi * west s fh « waitress

whom she has been estranged for years. This means, among other things , that Nora has no reference group the views of which could affect th e couple's formation. Because only Max's circle is allowed to judge the relation ship, the film can hedge on how much narrative weight Nora's class identity i s allowed. Thus, the questio n o f what i t i s to b e a working-class woman is raised—or rather, elided—in terms that already compromise the film's ability to answer it. Max, on the other hand , is virtually submerged in a clique, the nucleus of which is composed o f young men, all of whom are Jewish an d professionals. This clanlike social group rejects people of inferior socioeconornic status as outsiders; people like Nora can never be received into its famil iarity (i n the litera l sense). 2 To thes e nouvea u rich e Jewish yuppies, who know how to interpret her social-structural characteristics—her class, religion, and (gendered ) age—Nor a is a hopelessly inappropriate partner for Max. Middle-aged , working-class shiksas , available an d sexuall y canny, are fine for affairs, for dalliances; but t o "bring one home," to take such a liaison seriously, is grotesque.3

9t

White Mate

This attitude exemplifies the familiar dichotomous schema that assigns women t o on e of two mutuall y exclusive categories: ba d girl/good girl ; whore/virgin; girlfriend/wife ; blond e (dumb)/brunette . Whatever th e specifics, women exemplifying the firs t ter m ar e seen as sexually exciting but not fit to be wived, whereas women instancing the second lack sexual allure but ar e what men must settle fo r when they settle down . Max's association wit h Nor a i s understandable, indee d enviable , s o long a s it i s kept withi n well-understoo d limits , bu t Max' s emotiona l investmen t i n his relationship with Nora challenges the clan's right to define what is appropriate t o its members.4 This dichtomizing representational strateg y displace s clas s difference s among women ont o difference s i n thei r sexuality . That is , White Palaces use of th e ba d girl/goo d gir l schem a project s clas s difference s amon g women ont o differences i n thei r sexua l comportment—working-class women ar e bad; women of Max's class , good. Sinc e clas s appears in th e form o f gender/sexual stereotype , th e manne r of its (displaced ) presenc e functions to obscure its real existence. But White Palace does no t simpl y employ this regim e of sexual stereotyping, it subjects i t to critical scrutin y by showing that contrar y to type , Nora is the appropriat e mat e for Max, Using sexuality as a means for in terrogating socia l difference , th e film problematizes the assumptio n tha t an individual' s structura l socia l characteristics—he r class , race, gender , age, and s o on—sufficiently determin e th e ground s of her connection t o another huma n being. The fil m assert s tha t "disqualifying " social differ ences notwithstanding, indeed, in part precisely because of them, Nora is not merel y a n appropriat e partne r fo r Max , bu t Ma x i s lucky to hav e found her. 5 White Palace thus raises the question of how two individuals so obviously unsuited to one another could come to form a couple.

The Source of Connection Having conjured up all the stereotypes that tell against its unlikely couple, White Palace must now set to work to defeat them. This is made easier by the casting of James Spader and Susan Sarandon as its leads, for the audi ence's reception o f the film's narrative, which determines th e being of the characters a s fictional, is inevitably "contaminated" b y its awarenes s tha t Max and Nora are being playe d by two attractive stars. And i t is not just that Spade r an d Sarando n ar e stars, bu t tha t the y ar e precisely thes e stars—whose recen t film s ha d endowe d the m wit h sexuall y intriguin g

White Mate 9

3

identities—that justifies the audience' s anticipation o f eventual sex. James Spaders breakthrough rol e as the sensitiv e but damage d videographer in Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989 ) had just established hi m a s a lead actor and Susan Sarando n had alread y rehearsed Nora's persona a s the olde r sexual initiator o f men i n suc h film s a s Bull Durham (1988). Playing o n thes e resonances, White Palace sets u p ou r expectatio n o f a similar relationshi p between the characters these stars will play in this film.6 This anticipation of a Max-Nora coupl e does not, however, explain how the audienc e can be persuade d tha t Nor a reall y is a suitable partne r fo r Max. Indeed, our expectation tha t a sexual relationship betwee n th e tw o will develo p coul d just b e a symptom of th e sam e stereotypica l under standing of women of Nora's type that Max's clan exhibits. We therefore need t o di g deeper t o understan d ho w the audienc e becomes convince d that Ma x an d Nor a deserv e b e mor e t o on e anothe r tha n jus t sexua l partners. In fact , i t i s another dichotomizin g differenc e separatin g Ma x fro m Nora—neatness/messiness—that althoug h no t specificall y social, lends plausibility t o this couple. The film shows us that to judge what is fitting on the basi s of apparent differenc e i s a mistake, for contrary appearances may conceal deeper levels of affinity . From th e first scene in which h e figures, Max is depicted a s fanatically, even obsessively, neat. As he comes home from work and enters his apartment, h e stop s twic e t o rearrang e the na p o n hi s expensive an d tastefu l Persian rug . When he puts his freshly cleane d suit s i n th e closet , we are invited t o se e his man y identical suits , al l hung neatly in rows . There is nothing in thi s apartmen t tha t i s out o f its place, n o trac e o f a n unruly item escaping Max's control, By contrast, Nora's slovenliness seems almost a caricature. When Ma x first enters her home , a house in a "bad" par t o f town, i t i s strewn wit h refuse lik e a n abandone d shack . In a subjectiv e sho t take n fro m Max' s point of view, we experienc e fo r ourselves th e disarra y that confront s Nora's visitor. It reall y does look as if it had been hi t by a cyclone, and we share Max' s queas y reaction t o wha t h e sees . The problem s tha t Nora' s messiness portend ar e somewhat heavy-handedl y prefigured a s Max dis covers an d the n discard s a half-eaten sandwic h durin g thei r firs t sexua l encounter. Taken a t face value, this difference betwee n Max an d Nora could stand for a deep an d final incompatibility. Reconcilin g his exaggerated nee d for order wit h he r abandonmen t t o chao s woul d see m like mixin g oil wit h

»4

White Mate

water. In a n incident early in their courtship , Ma x arrives at Noras house for dinne r on e evenin g carrying a present. She excitedly unwraps it onl y to find that Max has bought he r a mini-vacuum cleaner , as if her lack of one were responsible fo r the messines s of her home. Nora's response is to throw Max out: Flowers or perfume mak e an appropriate gift , she angrily insists, not a dustbuster. But a s a chastened Max leave s the house , he— and we—glimps e Nora' s no w sparkling kitche n an d a dinner tabl e wit h candles an d flowers that presage d plan s for a romantic evening together, Nora's messiness must be, in some sense, a choice sh e has made. The significanc e of this sequence emerge s in the cours e of the film, as Max's compulsiv e neatnes s and Nora' s equall y determined messines s are revealed as more than idiosyncratic tics. In fact , this issue becomes a pretext for exploring what makes two people suited t o one another, and what we learn is instructive: Their exaggerated an d opposite behaviors are actually different response s t o simila r personal tragedies, s o this apparen t in compatibility reveals a source of deep existential connection . Max an d Nor a ha d eac h suffere d a devastating loss—Max , his wife , Janey, killed in a car accident; Nora , her son, Jimmy, dead a s the resul t of substance abuse . Fo r both, losing a loved on e initiate d a catastrophi c break. Nothing tha t has come after i s the same as it had been before. Max has sought impossibl e levels of control over his experience, as if his obsessive neatnes s coul d war d of f furthe r suffering . An d Nora , he r lif e no w bereft o f purpose, ha s los t interes t i n he r existence , an d he r slovenl y housekeeping is just one symptom of this letting go. A common experience of loss provides the ground of a sympathetic attentiveness to one another that break s through th e surfac e characteristic s that keep Max and Nora apart. For Max's yuppie friends, you are your demographics—Nora is just an over-the-hill, lower-class shiksa—but White Palace condemns such superficiality, requiring its audience to acknowledge that simila r experience s ca n undercut the socia l categorie s tha t divid e people. This might temp t on e to see the film as relying on the ide a of an essential commonalit y o f human experienc e mor e basic tha n socia l dis tinctions, bu t suc h an interpretation i s not necessary . It is enough t o see the film as positing a source of connection i n the individual biographies o f these tw o human beings tha t i s not reducibl e t o a common socia l cate gory. Precisely becaus e the y shar e th e experienc e o f loss, Max an d Nor a are more similar than their obvious differences woul d lead one to expect. But at the same time, it is these differences that allow them to attain th e intense connection elsewher e unavailable to them. Their peers cannot see

White Mate 9

5

them for what they are: The working-clas s men in the bar Nora frequent s size her up as just a sexually available older woman, a lonely waitress looking for some company; to the avi d women whose voices we hear on Max's answering machine, he is the demographic jackpot, with al l the qualifica tions they deem necessary in a partner. But both Max and Nora have chosen nothing rathe r than settl e for so little. Hence, the film suggests, only by going outside thei r respectiv e group s will eithe r fin d someon e wit h whom to share his or her deepest hurts and hopes.

Nora a s Marily n In th e mos t notoriou s scen e in White Palace, Nor a seduce s the sleepin g Max. Earlier in the evening, he repeatedly deflects Nora's sexual overtures. But when he falls aslee p on her couch, she ignores his rebuffs an d begins to fellate him. As in other post-Reagan-era films—Pretty Woman, for example—sex open s u p th e possibilit y o f a committed relationship . Bu t White Palace goes further, asserting that in itself, Nora's seduction of Max establishes he r suitability to be his partner. To see why this make s sense, we need to appreciate how the film connects Nora with Marilyn Monroe , for i t is through this narrative strategy that White Palace makes its point. From th e momen t we learn more about Nora than tha t she works in a hamburger joint, her obsession wit h Monro e i s emphasized. When Nora first runs into Max in a bar, she suggests that he looks like Tony Curtis . Although thi s may seern a rather bizarre association—James Spader does not look anything like Tony Curtis—the key to its meaning becomes clear when Nor a proceed s t o quot e a line Monro e utter s i n Some Like It Hot (1959): "I had a wonderful dream . I wa s sorting you r shells and mixing your cocktails and when I woke up, 1 wanted to swim right back to you."7 Nora is thinking of Curtis a s he appeared in that film and casts herself as Monroe, a n identification emphasized furthe r b y the poster s o f Marily n that ador n Nora's walls (see Photo 5.2). O n enterin g her home, Max notices thes e an d asks , "What exactly is there betwee n yo u an d Marily n Monroe?" to whic h sh e replies, "Oh, she's just s o fucked u p an d glam orous, an d losin g an d fightin g al l the time , losin g an d fighting. " Nor a clearly identifies with Marilyn, and to understand Nora's view of her relationship t o Max , a s wel l a s th e meanin g o f he r identificatio n wit h Monroe, we need to turn to Some Like It Hot, The relevan t aspect of that film is the development of the romance between Suga r Can e (Marily n Monroe ) an d Joe (Ton y Curtis) . Joe, a

96

White Ptltet

Photo 5. 2 Ma x inspecting Nora's collection of Marilyn Monroe Posters

womanizing saxophone player, hides out from pursuing gangsters b y disguising himself as Josephine, a female saxophonis t in an all-woman band. There, he meets Sugar Cane, a character in the "dumb-blonde" tradition , who is vulnerable to seduction by men like himself. 8 The stoc k figure of the dumb blonde promise s sexual availability without too much bother about a "relationship." Kathlee n Rowe calls attention to the use of this cliche in films of the 1950s, including Some Like It Hot? For her, the supersessio n of the unrul y woman of 1930s comedies by the dumb blonde mark s a retreat from th e progressive sexual politics o f those Depression-era films, a view that misses Some Like It Ho/s critica l thrust . Some Like It Hot interrogates th e dum b blond e cliche , implyin g tha t there i s mor e t o Suga r tha n a projection o f mal e desire: Beneat h th e stereotype, there is the deeper reality of persistence in the fac e of pain and loss. Sugar has remained a caring and vulnerable human being despite re peated desertions by the callow musicians to whom she is fatally attracted . In a film in which mal e characters ar e constantly disguisin g themselves , appearing t o b e other tha n the y are , the tensio n betwee n wha t appear s

White Mate

91

and what lies beneath the surfac e i s repeatedly invoked . Some Like It Hot proposes t o show us that there is more to its dumb blonde than her allur ing curves. To seduce Sugar, Joe invents for himself a character rich enough t o at tract her, but wounded s o as to enlist her sympathy. He poses as the mul timillionaire hei r to the Shel l Oi l fortune , who, incidentally, sounds a lot like Gar y Grant . "Shel l Jr., " as Sugar call s him , confesse s to impotence , grief a t th e accidenta l deat h o f hi s fiance e havin g unmanne d him . Courting he r on a yacht tha t i s not hi s own, Joe sets u p Suga r to try t o cure him of his tragic disability . Like White Palace, Some Like It Hot feature s a morally questionable se duction. If Billy Wilder's film expects us to take pleasure in Joe's conquest and to suspend our moral qualms, Sugar must be both alluring and laughable. That she swallows Joe's outlandish seductio n stor y licenses us to enjoy watching her participate i n her own victimization. (A t the same time, of course, we anticipate her ultimate victory over him.) And ou r pleasure is doubled in that it is Monroe who plays Sugar, for this is part of her im age as well. Thus, Some Like It Hot become s a metaspoof o f the dum b blonde tradition tha t its narrative critiques. Audiences tend to pass over the content of Joe's fantastic story, but fro m the vantag e poin t o f White Palace, it i s worth som e attention . In earlie r chapters, I have argued that what I have called "mascuEnism" is an evasion of human finitude. The seductio n sequenc e fro m Some Like It Hot plays on another aspec t of our dependence o n others: The fac t that the death of those we love can destroy our happiness. Shell Jr.'s feigned impotence sug gests that an alternative source of the rnasculinist refusal to connect is that caring for another makes one vulnerable to the pain of loss,10 The resul t o f Sugar' s attention s is , not surprisingly , Joe's (Shel l Jr.'s?) arousal, but contrar y to his intentions, he falls in love with her. Her inno cence an d vulnerability , th e ver y qualities tha t mak e her suc h a n easy mark, finally endear her to him, and so Joe is caught in the web of his own seduction. Moved b y Sugar's generosity, Joe realizes—as do we—that the stereotype is not adequate to the reality of Sugar/Monroe. Hi s successfu l seduction is thus a Pyrrhic victory, for the dumb blonde winds up winning the heart of her would-be seducer , offering hi m the possibility o f true intimacy. Joe's masculinism, ruled by a logic o f conquest, a s well as the in vented an d inverte d masculinit y of Shel l Jr. , rule d b y a logic o f froze n withdrawal, ar e both defeated b y Sugar's ministrations. The seriou s critical point mad e by the film's comic antic s is that thes e mal e postures ar e

99

White Mate

impoverished ways of being a man, No mere projection o f masculinist desire, Some Like It Hot's dum b blonde free s he r partner fo r a richer experience of his manhood. Because Nor a frame s he r self-understandin g throug h th e narrativ e of Some Like It Hot, White Palace ask s us t o identif y her seductio n o f th e sleeping Max with Sugar' s gesture toward Shell Jr. Unlike the socially ambitious wome n o f his socia l class, Nora understand s tha t i n respons e t o Janey's death , Ma x ha s retreated fro m hi s ow n sexual desire. Sh e will be his Sugar, releasing him from hi s icy withdrawal to reexperience his manhood sexually. White Palace explores th e phenomenolog y o f grief mor e full y tha n it s comic exemplar , however: Max' s sexua l disengagement i s both emble m and sympto m o f hi s desireles s being-in-the-world . In seducin g Max , Nora is acting out of an understanding of what he really needs, which requires her to override his rejection of her sexual come-on. I n reawakening his manhood, she expects that analogously to Joe/Josephine/Shell Jr. , Max will come to see her as a fit partner. Common t o bot h Some Like It Hot an d White Palace is the suggestio n that a full sexua l experience can shatter th e socia l stereotypes tha t otherwise confin e our possibilities . I t i s the forc e o f his renewe d desir e tha t binds Ma x t o Nora ; tha t ease s his fea r o f losing contro l o f his life ; an d that, finally, allows him to experience his manhood mor e expansively than his peer group's stultifyin g norms allow.11 With al l its cleve r intertextua l play , White Palace is makin g a serious claim fo r Hollywoo d film , s o often dismisse d a s superficial. Nora's in sightful us e of Some Like It Hot models the way in which these films have been, an d ca n be, a source of mora l instructio n fo r thei r audiences—a t their best , questionin g th e routinized , often cruel, categories o f common sense. White Palace thu s challenge s th e usua l oppositions : entertainmen t versus art , pleasur e versus significance . The film' s over t critiqu e o f th e masculinist assumptio n tha t attractiv e working-clas s women—Sugar , Nora—are superficial and dumb is equally a defense of Hollywood agains t an elitism tha t equates production values with vacuity. 12 Overcoming Ambivalenc e Despite th e impac t of their sexua l encounter, Max is unable to fre e him self from a sense of embarrassment at being see n with Nora . By now, we viewers have made the judgment abou t he r fitness to be his partner tha t

White Mate

99

Max ha s still to accept . I n due time, he is brought t o this realizatio n fo r himself. Bu t before thi s happens , Max's ambivalence , his inability to ac cept Nor a completely an d for whom sh e is, is explored i n discomfortin g detail. At first, the film shows us—but not Nora—tha t Max acts as if he were ashamed of her. For example, out walking with Nora , he spies a business associate and , to avoi d bein g seen , subtly alters their path . Nora , who is engrossed i n conversation, is oblivious t o this stratagem , but a long sho t that reveals what Max has done lets us anticipate th e trouble to follow . Max's failure t o publicly acknowledge Nor a soon become s a serious is sue for the couple . Oblige d t o atten d hi s frien d Nei l Horowitz' s (Jaso n Alexander) weddin g t o Rache l Fin e (Eilee n Brennan) , he lies t o Nora , telling her that he must spend that evening helpin g hi s mother with he r taxes. When her electricity is cut off, Nora calls Max at his mother's, onl y to lear n the truth . This discover y causes Nora t o confes s he r insecurity , her worry tha t eac h tim e h e leaves her, it wil l be the last . Nor a under stands that Ma x feels sh e is not th e righ t sor t of person fo r him, but sh e warns him that althoug h sh e forgives M m this time, she will no t excuse a second lie, for it strikes too deeply a t her own self-esteem. As if in response to he r threat, a crisis promptly ensues . The difficult y emerges when Nora realizes that Max has not been able to shed his sense of her a s an embarrassment. Ironically, her realizatio n come s at a n occa sion Max takes to demonstrate precisel y the opposite: H e invites Nora to Thanksgiving dinne r a t th e Horowitzes' , wher e al l the member s of his clan are to gather. Nora does not see this as a free ac t of acknowledgment, however, but as an attempt to balance her demands with those of his clan. Although th e couple will eventually transcend this crisi s and be reunited, for th e momen t this inciden t creates too wide a n abyss for their relation ship to bridge . Nora understands Max's gesture as duplicitous because of an earlier incident at a local supermarket, to which she and Max had gone to shop. Max abandoned he r at the checkout lin e while h e searched fo r an item tha t h e had forgotten : freshly ground parmesan , not th e declasse canned stuff she had chosen. On hi s quest, he encountered Rache l and, acting as if he were alone, hedge d abou t bringin g "hi s myster y woman" wit h hi m t o he r Thanksgiving dinner. Returning to the checkout counter, Max lies to Nora, describing Rachel as an acquaintance whose name he could not remember. Meanwhile Nora, who accepts Max's explanation, believes that he r in vitation t o the Horowitzes' means he no longer need s to conceal her . She

tOO

White Mate

is very nervous about the impressio n she will make, but Ma x seems surprisingly untrouble d b y his lie , a s if sure that Nora wil l no t remembe r Rachel. O r perhaps , Noras anxietie s about bein g compare d t o hi s dead wife, Janey, have simply distracted him . In an y case , fro m th e momen t th e coupl e nervousl y enter s th e Horowitzes' home, things begin to unravel. First, Nora does recognize her hostess a s the woman in the supermarke t whose name Max had suppos edly forgotten. She now interprets Max' s failure of nerve to mean that he had bee n trapped b y circumstances into bringin g her . Recalling that she had hear d Rachel' s invitatio n o n hi s answerin g machine, she concludes that Max simply had to ask her to come with him to avoid another scene. Not t o hav e done so—b y eithe r lyin g once agai n or by not goin g him self—would hav e let sli p tha t h e stil l wa s ashamed o f her . But i t no w seems clear to her that Max's gesture did not signif y th e commitmen t t o their relationship that she had assumed.13 At las t seeing Max with hi s friends, Nora comes to believe that he and she are not merely an improbable couple but an impossible one. The mem bers of Max's nouveau riche Jewish social set treat him a s if he were family, talking of "our boy , Max," and such . Although Max' s friend s behav e cordially, Nora knows that sh e stands out; that she does no t belong there; indeed, that there is nothing that she can ever do to win real acceptance. One o f the mos t interesting and intelligent thing s about White Palace is its depictio n o f Nora's respons e t o he r awkwar d situation. At first , sh e tries t o maintai n an ironic distance, a s Larry Klugrna n (Core y Parker) , one of Max's close friends, asks her what she thinks of "our boy." His pos sessiveness—matched by that of Max's other friends—seem s intende d to exclude Nora, to make her feel as if she had lured Max away from thi s circle of intimates. Larry's opening ha s a prurient edge, fo r he act s a s if he knows that this older, working-class woman had used her sexual cunning to ensnare Max. This is bad enough, but as if to keep Nora from establish ing intimac y with anyon e a t th e party , Larry' s wife , Sherr i (Barbar a Howard), interrupt s th e conversatio n t o cal l her husband' s attention t o the Horowitzes ' kitche n chairs : "Just what we've have been looking for." Nora's, "Hey, you better ge t a peek a t thos e chairs , Larry," overheard by Sherri, is indicative o f both he r growin g unease and o f her derisiv e attitude toward Larry' s domestication a t the hands of his wife. Further contributing to Nora's unease is the company's failure to get her name right and their seemin g disapproval of her dress. Although sh e has taken pains with he r appearance , her judgment a s to what is appropriate

White Mate 10

!

underscores rather than undermines the stereotype o f the sexually experienced shiksa. Her dres s keeps slipping off of her shoulder to reveal more skin than is consistent with he r hosts' decorous standards. To Max's clan, Nora's predicament is interpreted a s a blatant displa y of the sexua l wares that have fuddled poor , naive Max. Seeking relief for her battered self-esteem, Nora retires to the bathroom to cool ou t with a friendly cigarette . Bu t Sherr i walks in on her by accident. To make conversation, she asks Nora what she does and, on learning that Nor a i s a waitress i n a fast-food restaurant , observes tha t Ma x i s "quite a catch" and wonders how Nora "did it. " Offended by the implica tion sh e hears in Sherri' s question, Nor a responds with a coarse, "Give a good blow-job, I guess." To Sherri's quip, "I bet you do," "I bet you don't" is Nora's comeback. But echoing one of the centra l themes of this film— "What you se e is not alway s what yo u get"—Sherri ha s the las t word , suggesting Nora is too quick to dismiss other people's blow jobs. There is irony in Nora's exchanges with Larry and Sherri, for they convey truths unrecognizabl e to those not equipped t o hear them. Althoug h it is Nora's sexual prowess tha t ha s "captured" Max , neithe r th e leerin g husband nor his cynical wife understand s what this means. On th e othe r hand, Nora is herself not innocent of stereotyping, for she treats Sherri as if she were nothing but her own inverse—virgin to Nora's whore. Once seated at dinner, Nora can hardly contain hersel f as Neil's father, Sol (Steven Hill), holds forth on the contemporary political scene, excoriating the Republican s for having created a deficit tha t will dominate th e agenda of the countr y and burden its working people fo r generations t o corne. Feeling eve r more the outside r t o thi s well-off Jewish clan , Nora explodes at what she perceives to be their liberal hypocrisy. What goes on in Washington make s no difference t o her, she rails, for she will be "flip ping burgers " no matte r wh o is in th e White House. Sh e storms out o f the apartment, with Max and his mother in close pursuit.14 Denouncing Max for having once again deceived her, Nora makes good her earlier threat: This time, his lie will not be forgiven. Despite all Nora has mean t to him , Ma x canno t fre e himsel f fro m th e prejudice s of his clan. And s o Nora is forced t o choose betwee n their relationshi p an d her self-esteem—and her e it i s important t o recall that, unlike Max, she has no context t o call on for support. She has no choice but to reject him and leave St. Louis. Only with Nora's departure is Max's ambivalence resolved. Her signifi cance descends on him in an epiphany at a party given by Heidi Solomo n

!0i

White Mate

(Kim Meyers), an attractive Jewish yuppie, the embodiment of all that the clan values: sophistication, beauty , artistic taste, wealth. But as Max looks around a t hi s friends , h e see s them with eye s from which th e scale s of conformity have fallen. "How do you know who's right for each other?" he asks them, a s he points ou t th e grir n realitie s o f their relationships—th e divorces, the bad-mouthing . Agitated, h e rises from th e couc h on which he has been silting and, to the consternation of the other guests, inspects Heidi's dustbuster, exclaiming, "There's no dust in it!" The clima x to thes e fevere d rumination s recall s the earlie r dustbuster debacle a t Nora's . Then, the mini-vacuu m was a symbol of what Ma x would no t accep t in her; now , it represent s the emptines s o f the live s of Max's friends. At last, he realizes that Nora is the appropriate partner for him and all that remains is for the film to engineer their reconciliation. A Problemati c Endin g Unfortunately, the upbea t narrative closure White Palace provides the saga of Max and Nora backs away from its premise that the very unlikeliness of their attraction ha s freed them to love one another. In fact, the film's ending i s ambiguous , but o n eithe r o f its tw o mos t plausibl e reading s thi s harsh judgment must stand. The mor e natural of the two interpretations would have the couple's reunion privilege working-class values. According to this view, Max's reconciliation with Nora is secured by his rejection of his old social nexus—his yuppie friends and even his mother. Max is set down in a world totally de termined by Noras values: in New York, where he is alone, living in a rundown apartment with a view of garbage, thus embracing disorder and ugliness, and hoping to work as a teacher, resuming a career he had given up for reasons neve r clarified, but a t least no longer i n advertising, that pro fession mos t concerne d with appearanc e rather tha n reality . Through a mechanical inversion of everything he ha d been, h e breaks down Nora's reluctance t o resum e their relationship . This Princ e Charmin g get s t o have his Cinderella no t by bringing he r to his castle but by relocating t o her hovel. Instead o f exploring ho w Max might build a life responsiv e to his own needs rather than one acceptable to his friends, the film chooses a familiar Hollywood option—th e fau x populis t rout e o f turning Max' s lif e int o a replica of Nora's. In effect, the ending valorizes one term of each of the divisions (excep t age) that separate Ma x and Nora. Ever y aspect of Nora's

White Mate 10

3

gritty working-class existenc e i s now represented a s superior t o the glit tery artifice of Max's former world. Rather than maintai n its subversion of the hol d o f hierarchic rankings on ou r thought an d conduct, the film now embraces the superficia l view of social difference i t ha d criticize d earlier . Max's inversio n o f values results in as inauthentic a form of life as one dominated by his friends'judg ments o f appropriateness. In rejectin g their values , Max reject s not onl y their superficia l snobber y but aspect s of his own life tha t ha d previously mattered a great deal. This point i s brought hom e by the film's use of musical taste as a class marker. Early in the film, in a scene in which Max drives Nora home fro m the bar, she asks about the music on the car stereo. When he responds that the opera to which he is listening is the most beautiful music in the world, this is the first evidence we see in him of passion. Only in relation to thi s music does Max betray deep feeling; otherwise he struggles to keep emotion at bay . Nora react s by asking him if he has anythin g by the Oak Ridge Boys . Max, the upper-clas s sophisticate i s an aficionado of opera, whereas th e working-clas s waitres s predictabl y like s country music. A t that point , however, although we recognize Nora' s lack of sophisticatio n as an obstacle to their relationship, we also enjoy her refusa l t o be intimidated by elite cultural values. No hushed respect from her . But in the final scene in the deli where Nora no w works, having given up his home, his job, and his family to be with her, Max goes still furthe r and, in respons e to he r request that h e order, himself asks for some Oa k Ridge Boys. The messag e here is that he is now truly fit for her because he has cas t asid e the "highfalutin " ar t o f opera i n favo r o f the "low " ar t o f country music. This final act of renunciation initiates th e vulgar sequence in which Max symbolically screws Nora on one of the deli's tables. Max's gesture shows that despit e it s sensitive exploration o f the com plex and often hidden bases of relationship early in the film , White Palace has retreated from it s brave attempt to see both high and low as legitimate sources of moral and aesthetic experience, or, put anothe r way, has backed away from it s brave attempt to reject a hierarchically structured system of social valuation.15 The second , alternative reading of Max's reunion with Nora would be gin b y emphasizing the narrativ e significance of Max's mother , Edit h (Renee Taylor), who plays an ongoing but relatively minor role in the film. We are introduced t o her when she and Max visit the grave of Max's late wife, the day after hi s first sexual encounter with Nora. Upset that Janey's

!04

White Mate

grave has no t receive d th e car e fo r which the y ha d paid , she fall s t o he r knees an d starts pullin g up weeds. Max' s discomfort is evident as he at tempts to reassure her that he will see to the care of the grave site. Edith's extravagant behavior suggest s tha t Max's attractio n t o th e mor e refine d world of his circle of St. Louis yuppies may have a psychologically com plex origin : Instea d o f simply being hi s taken-for-granted context , tha t milieu may represent a haven from hi s embarrassing social origins. This sens e i s reinforce d b y Edith' s behavio r durin g th e ill-fate d Thanksgiving dinne r tha t spark s Nora's decisio n t o brea k off with Ma x and leav e St. Louis . When Ma x pick s up hi s mother , he r hous e seems more lik e Nora' s dum p tha n hi s own fanc y digs . Edit h ha s prepared a noodle dish, as if she had been invited to a potluck, not an elaborately prepared holida y table. Late r sh e spill s a drink and , losing he r composure , falls t o her knees yet again, this time to clean up the mes s she has made. As th e camer a move s to Nora , w e hea r Edit h apologiz e t o Ma x fo r embarrassing hi m i n fron t o f hi s friends , as i f thi s wer e n o isolate d occurrence. On thi s evidence, then, Edith can be seen as the source of Max's hunger for socia l acceptance . Hi s loud, unpolished mothe r i s clearly not o f th e same socia l clas s as the parent s o f his yuppi e friends , th e Horowitzes . (Although i t i s tempting t o rea d Max's reactio n a s a case of Jewish self hatred, it is class and not Jewishness that is the focu s here. ) If Max's persistent embarrassment over Nora, his inability to fully honor her, is rooted in his relationship to his mother, then to accept Nora is also to accept his mother, a working-class Jewish woman , and—finall y an d mos t impor tant—to accept his own class origins. Interpreted i n this manner, the couple's reunion once again diminishes the power of their unlikeliness. If, in the old fairy tale, Cinderella ascend s to her rightful clas s position throug h the mediatio n o f Prince Charming, in the film Max is declassed throug h bi s relationship with Nora. Thus, in a surprisin g twist, White Palace sends its upstart young male back to th e class from which he has come. At th e film's start, there i s a disparity between the wealth Max has acquired as an advertising executive and his inherited class status. On to this interpretation, rathe r than being socially inappropriate, Max's union with Nora attaches him to a partner from th e class into which he was born. O n this reading, then, the endin g of White Palace demonstrates th e futilit y of attempting t o ris e abov e one's socia l origins, fo r one' s "real " class status will always out.

White Mate I D

S

White Palaces ending thus marks a retreat fro m it s earlier subversion of hierarchic ranking s and affirmatio n o f th e valu e of socia l difference . B y reverting t o stereotypica l portrayal s o f class—through eithe r Max' s em brace of Noras working-class values or an assertion of the untenability of his socia l ascent— White Palace betrays its ambition t o mak e a statemen t that transcend s the familiar narrative permutations of the unlikel y couple film by destabilizing the categories tha t structure them. This sense that, in the end, the film loses its nerve is not just an artifact of its reception ; it i s present i n th e tex t o f the film itself . The fina l se quence show s Ma x symbolicall y screwin g Nor a o n a table tha t h e ha s cleared wit h a sweeping, mach o gesture. The cheer s an d applaus e of the deli's patrons, who now watch this scene much as do we, disrupt the film's hitherto naturalistic assumptions. By interposing thi s second audience between us and the film's two main characters, ou r absorption i s overtaken by self-consciousness . But White Palaces winking invocation o f the specula r nature of film is not a simple gestur e of self-awareness on it s part. Instead , b y calling at tention t o th e proces s o f viewing, White Palace also calls attention t o th e contrivance of its own ending. The parodi c character of the final sequence is its guilty acknowledgment tha t it has proceeded i n bad faith. So, by adopting an ending of this type, White Palace ultimately aligns it self with Hollywood's reluctance to affir m th e fruitfulnes s o f social differ ences. It is particularly ironic that this film, which show s so brilliantly the impoverishing effect s o f socia l conformity , wind s u p cavin g in t o th e Hollywood system' s deman d fo r narrativ e closure . White Palace fails t o achieve what it held out as a possibility for its male lead, namely, the ability to liberate oneself from th e constraints of a deadening conformity.

Notes 1. A numbe r o f unlikely coupl e films, including Sunset Boulevard (1950), All That Heaven Allows (1955), and Harold and Maude (1971) , focus o n ag e differ ence. Although the latte r tw o are critical of society for seeing "older" women as inappropriate fo r "younger" men , Sunset Boulevard brilliantly explores th e diffi culties a once-glamorous se x symbol has with the aging process. 2. Although his friends' parents are part of the group, Max's mother i s not, as we learn when Rache l Fine (Rache l Levin) , th e wif e o f one of the clan' s alph a males, apologizes t o Max for inviting he r to Thanksgiving dinner . I discus s th e relevance of this later in the chapter.

106

White Mate

3. Sexual stereotypes thu s function a s the embodimen t of class, religious, and age differences amon g women. This demonstrates the need to think of identity in nonadditive terms. For an explicit argument concerning this point, see Elizabeth Spelman, Inessential Other (Boston: Beacon Press, 1991). 4. In man y unlikely couple films, men are also used to represent types. This is quite obvious , for example, in It Happened One Night, where Ellie Andrews's po tential husbands, Peter Warn e and Kin g Westley, are contrasted. Their relation ship to sexuality is not, however, the marker of the differences betwee n them. 5. It is easy to see this film, as some feminist critics no doubt do, as reinforcing the stereotyp e tha t women are, in essence, nurturers of males. Although thi s in terpretation i s true t o th e film, it shoul d no t kee p us fro m seein g that ther e is more at issue here than gender stereotyping . 6. The nontransparenc y of the fil m acto r mark s an important wa y in which Hollywood cinem a differs fro m othe r ar t forms , fo r the audience' s awareness of the identity of the actors never becomes fully transparent or, to be more precise, is always somethin g that ca n lose it s transparenc y and emerg e into th e audience's awareness, thus allowin g for a tension betwee n characte r an d acto r tha t is no t possible in , say , a novel o r eve n a play. Virginia Wrigh t Wexma n argues , i n Creating the Couple: Love, Marriage, and Hollywood Performance (Princeton : Princeton Universit y Press, 1993), that th e audience' s awareness of their star s is central to understanding the appeal of Hollywood films. 7. This and future quotation s fro m Some Like It Hot are from m y transcription of the film's sound track. The sam e holds for quotations from White Palace. 8. For a n interestin g discussio n o f Monroe i n ligh t o f thi s tradition , se e Richard Dyer, "Monroe an d Sexuality," in Women and Film, Janet Todd, ed. (New York- Holmes an d Meier, 1988), pp. 69 if. 9. Chapter 6 of her book, The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), is titled "Dumb Blondes. " 10. For my purposes here, I ignore the film's implicit view of Shell Jr. as gay. In her interpretatio n i n The Unruly Woman (pp . 183-190), Rowe misses this aspect of the film. 11. Sex is therefor e a symbol i n thes e films , standin g fo r a n aspec t of realit y that is absent in lives governed by social stereotype. 12. In this sense, we can see the entire narrative as an allegory of the nature of film itself. 13. The film does not problematize Nora's understanding of Max's motivation. Instead, i t simpl y accept s her interpretation. The proble m thi s causes for the film's conclusion might hav e been avoided if the film had taken the timing of the characters' interpretations to be more significant. That is, Nora does not allow for the possibilit y tha t Max' s attitud e may have changed sinc e his supermarket deception. The fil m coul d the n hav e portraye d ho w ignoring temporality leads to significant misunderstanding s in relationships.

White Mate 10

7

14. One problem , a s we shall see, is the film's failure t o maintai n it s distanc e from Nora' s perspective. Once sh e confront s Sol , i t i s as if the fil m adopt s he r perspective, neglectin g th e elemen t o f hypocrisy in he r tota l dismissal of Max's nouveau riche clan. 15. The film' s portraya l o f the workin g clas s is not a s positive a s the endin g suggests. Indeed , ther e ar e a number o f respects in which i t portray s working class life in negative terms. There is Nora's asocial nature, as if working-class people had no social nexus. This contrasts especially starkly with Max's highly social definition o f self. Second, ther e is the film's portrayal of working-class men , fo r example, in the scene in which Nora and Max meet in the bar. At least part of the answer to why Nora is interested i n Max, aside from his physical beauty, is that he is not lik e the crud e working-class males, one of whom th e film foregrounds as Nora circumnavigates the bar to talk with Max. The ide a is that his androgyny is preferable t o th e machism o of these men for whom Nor a is simply a one-nigh t stand. Thus, despite it s ending' s valorizatio n o f the workin g class , White Pa/ace exhibits a highly ambivalent estimation of working-class life .

This page intentionally left blank

Part Two

Race

This page intentionally left blank

6 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Does F a t h e r R e a l l y K n o w Best?

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) i s the first of the fou r films I discuss in which the unlikely couple is an interracial one.1 All four films straightforwardly assum e the injustic e o f antiblack racism. Reflecting the differ ent historica l conjuncture s in which the y were made , and , in one case, a non-American context, and although necessaril y staking out different po sitions o n thi s intractabl e phenomenon , al l advance th e sam e narrative premise—transgressive romance^to explore the possibility of eliminating racism. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner tells th e stor y o f a n upper-class , whit e husband and wife, who at first disapprove of their daughter's intention t o marry a black man but later come to embrace the idea. Because the political turmoil of the 1960s—fro m th e civil rights movement to its more radical offsprin g suc h a s the blac k powe r movement—ha d resulte d i n a heightened awarenes s of the injustice s o f America's racialized society, the film can use this story to address the viability of liberalism, with its com mitment t o integratio n a s a means of undermining racia l hierarch y and, thus, achieving equality for blacks. Since the Draytons are "lifelong liberals," their initial hostility to the prospect of a black son-in-law calls liberal integrationism into question. The charg e that the film investigates is that when the chickens come home to roost, liberals canno t be counted o n to honor their ideals. ttt

fit

Saest Wka's Coming fe Dinner

But th e liberal s i n this film—and this i s its point—do no t deser t th e cause of racial justice, despite thei r initial difficulty i n living up to its consequences. By the film's end, bot h Christin a (Katharin e Hepburn), th e mother, and, more importantly, Matt (Spence r Tracy), th e fathe r o f the young bride-to-be, endorse their daughter's impending marriage . Indeed , the focus of the film is on Matt's arduous struggle to come to accept it. In the end , no t onl y i s thi s fathe r o f the brid e save d fro m th e charg e o f hypocrisy, but hi s embrace of his prospective son-in-la w vindicates liberalism a s a political philosoph y and , with it , integration a s the solutio n t o the racism of American society. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was a popular succes s when i t wa s re leased, grossing between sevent y and eighty millio n dollars an d winning two o f the te n Academ y Awards for which i t was nominate d (for Best Actress [Katharin e Hepburn ] an d Bes t Screenpla y [Willia m Rose]) . From the tim e of its release, however, critics have been nearl y unanimous that th e term s i n which thi s film tells it s stor y undermine its abilit y t o make a serious political statement—foremos t amon g thei r complaints , that the black male lead is so extraordinary and contrived a human being as t o b e simpl y unbelievable. A particularl y barbed exampl e i s Joseph Morgenstern's sarcasti c characterization o f John Prentic e a s "a composit e Schweitzer, Salt, and Christ colore d black for significance."2 Fil m schol ars hav e als o generall y dismisse d thi s fil m fo r it s lac k o f realism . Representative of these i s Donald Bogle , who labels the film "the last of the explicitl y integrationis t messag e pictures" and dismisse s it a s "pure 1949 claptra p don e u p i n 1940 s high-glos s MG M style." 3 Similarly , Thomas Cripp s cites Guess Who's Coming to Dinner as merely one in a line of films that signale d th e declin e o f Sidne y Poitier' s caree r an d tha t demonstrated "th e exhaustio n b y 196 8 o f th e genr e [o f th e messag e movie] and the ennui of its audience." 4 These harsh assessments did no t g o unanswered. Pointing ou t tha t h e repeatedly encountered difficult y i n fundin g th e film—mor e tha n once , Columbia threatened t o retract its financial support—Stanley Kramer, the film's producer and director, defende d the film's subject a s "the touchies t of all issues between blacks and whites: interracial sex and marriage." 5 H e also offere d a n interesting explanatio n of how John Wad e Prentice , th e character played by Sidney Poitier, had been developed : "W e took special pains t o mak e Poitier a very special character.... We di d thi s so that i f the youn g couple didn' t marr y because of their parent s disapproval , the only reaso n would b e tha t h e was black an d sh e was white."6 Kramer's strategy was thus calculatedly political. B y making John a man o f great

Suess Wke's Coning fe Dinner It

3

personal integrity and world renown, the film excludes factors other tha n race that might justify parental opposition t o the marriage. From Kramer's point o f view, this artific e free s th e film to concentrate on the question of white liberal racism. Sidney Poitier als o defende d the film s representationa l strategy , bu t with a somewhat different emphasis . He contende d tha t th e critics faile d to recognize Hollywood's complicity in American racism: In 196 7 it was utterly impossible to do an in-depth interracial love story, to treat the issue in dead earnestness, head on.... But Kramer , .. treated the theme with humor, but s o delicately, so humanly, so lovingly that he mad e everyone loo k at th e questio n fo r th e ver y first time i n fil m history. Guess Who'$ Coming to Dinner is a totally revolutionary movie.... What the critics didn't know and what blinded them to the great merit of the film, was that Hollywood was incapable of anything more drastic in 1967.7 According to Poitier , i n 196 7 th e compromise d stat e o f the film industry—and b y implication, American societ y generally—required th e film to procee d b y indirection. Without Kramer' s reassuringly tactful han dling, this drama of interracial love could not have been produced. Poitier's characterizatio n o f th e fil m a s revolutionary reminds u s tha t Guess Who's Coming to Dinner did brea k some long-standing taboos . For example, coming shortl y afte r th e repea l o f the Hollywoo d Productio n Code, it was Hollywood's first film to show a black man romantically kissing a white woman , even if that explosiv e imag e was confined to the rearview mirror of a taxicab (see Photo 6.1).8 Also, Poitier is right to insist that Guess Who's Coming to Dinner be seen as a compromise between the desire to make a politically significant statement about interracial romance—and through it , about liberalism and integration—and a realistic assessmen t of th e obstacle s pose d t o suc h a project by a racist film industry and society . But hi s defense o f the resul t ignores th e cos t t o principl e o f having effecte d tha t compromise. A s I shall demonstrate i n thi s chapter , Guess Who's Coming to Dinner fail s t o vindicate liberal integrationism i n large part because the representationa l and narrativ e strategies it adopt s t o forestall racist responses undercut its antiracist intentions. Defending Liberalis m an d Integratio n Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was a n interventio n i n th e highl y charged debate about th e civi l rights movement' s successes and failures . B y 1967 ,

tt4

Saest Wke's Coming fe Dinner

Photo 6. 1 Hollywood' s firs t interracia l kis s

the assassinatio n of black leaders like Martin Luthe r Kin g Jr., the emer gence o f the blac k powe r movement , and uprising s i n citie s al l across America had challenged th e viability of integration a s a political solutio n to segregatio n an d racism . The fil m frame s it s respons e t o thes e chal lenges by asking whether the residues of racism in white liberal consciousness invaEdate liberal political commitments. If, as the film hopes, peopl e like the Draytons can overcome their atavistic prejudices when faced with the climactic challenge of their daughter's proposing to marry "one," then the answer will be affirmative . Ironically, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner fastidiously avoids contextualizing its own politics, placin g the onl y two references to th e tumultuou s racial struggle s o f the 1960 s i n th e mout h o f the whit e couple' s maid, Tillie (Isabell e Sanford) . Both comment s ar e sarcastic references to tha t context. Watching Joh n clim b th e stair s o f the house , sh e comments , "Civil right s ar e one thing . This here is something else. " Later , warning John no t t o tak e advantag e of his fiancee, she threatens tha t i f he does , "You'll find out what Black Power really means."9 This marginalization of the film's raison d'etre both coyly acknowledges it s political agend a and betrays its anxiety about how the audience will react. The interracia l couple whose romance is at the center of this film comprises Johanna Drayto n (Katharin e Houghton)—the twenty-three-year old daughter o f Matt, a white, liberal newspape r publisher, and hi s wife ,

Suess Wke's Coning fe Dinner I t

5

Christina, th e owne r o f a n avant-gard e ar t gallery—an d Joh n Wad e Prentice—a thirty-seven-year-old African American doctor whom she met while on vacation in Hawaii. He i s the son of a retired mail carrier, John Sr. (Roy Glen n Jr.), and his wife, Mary (Beah Richards). The film's action takes place durin g on e afternoo n i n whic h th e tw o lover s sto p ove r i n Sa n Francisco, the Draytons' home. Johanna thinks that they are there simply to introduce John to her parents, but he has a different purpos e in mind. Johanna has assured her fiance that his race will not be an issue for her parents, bu t th e olde r an d les s naiv e John i s hardly sanguine about ho w they will react t o th e new s that thei r daughte r intend s t o marr y a black man, eve n one as accomplished as he is. Because Johanna is so young and so close to her parents, he has decided t o place the couple' s futur e i n the hands of the elde r Draytons : Unbeknowns t t o Johanna, h e will propos e that should either of them express any reservations about the marriage, he will brea k off the engagement . Bu t John ha s business to atten d t o i n Geneva—he i s on hi s wa y t o a new, important positio n a t th e Worl d Health Organization—s o the Drayton s will have only a few hours to de cide whether they will give the couple their blessing.w Initially, the prospects for liberalism ar e poor, for both of Johanna's parents recoil wit h shoc k and disapprova l from he r announce d intention t o marry John. We witnes s Christina' s reactio n first . Sh e ha s rushed hom e because Hillary St. George (Virgini a Christine), th e manage r of her art gallery, has told he r that he r daughter has unexpectedly arrived in town . John is in Mart' s study , phoning hi s parents, when Christin a enter s th e living room. Johanna gushes excitedly about having fallen head over heels in love, to Christinas eviden t pleasure. The film then toy s with it s audi ence, having Johanna tell her mother that there is one thing about her fiance that she must tell her . Of course, we expect Johanna to disclose that he is black, but instea d we learn of a previous marriage. As Johanna pro nounces her fiance's name, she is stopped dea d in midphras e by the loo k of shock that she—and we—see on Christina's face . The reason—reveale d in a midrange shot that places the two women in the foreground as John, in th e background , enter s th e livin g roo m fro m th e study—i s tha t Christina ha s seen that her daughter's fiance is black. Her distres s is so extreme that John advise s her t o si t down lest sh e faint, an d this normally self-possessed professional woman is reduced to stuttering, "Doc . . . Doc . . . Doctor Prentice, I'm so pleased to meet you." Matt Drayton's reaction, although not quite as dramatic, is no less troubling. Returning home from wor k on his way to a golf game, Matt finds

f 16

Saest Wka's Coming fe Dinner

Christina, Johanna, and John sitting on the terrace having lunch—but not before Tillie has warned him that "All hell's done broke loose now. " Matt handles thing s well until h e realizes—stopping in midstrid e a s he walks through th e livin g room—what Tillies warning means. Once h e under stands th e significanc e of John's presence, Matt decide s tha t her e i s a problem seriou s enough to justify abandoning his golf game. Matt's initia l oppositio n t o th e marriag e takes th e for m o f his worry about whether John i s a suitable partner for his daughter. As soo n a s he and Christin a ar e alone in hi s study , Matt telephone s hi s secretar y an d asks he r t o check into John's background. When hi s secretary calls back with th e new s tha t Joh n i s a n outstanding docto r an d scholar , Matt's hopes for an easy solution t o his dilemma are dashed. Since opposing th e marriage simpl y because o f John's rac e would forc e Mat t t o admi t hi s hypocrisy, h e take s refug e i n a differen t concern : tha t th e racis m o f American societ y will caus e the coupl e unacceptable suffering. A s a fa ther, he blusters, he must be the "rational " one , the on e who will not be swayed by "emotion," the on e who ca n therefore "realistically" assess the couple's clouded prognosis . Privileging Romanti c Lov e Faced with th e prospec t o f a black son-in-law, both Christin a an d Matt squirm with discomfort over where the teaching of their libera l ideals has led their daughter. But Christina has the easie r time overcoming her an guish, moved by evidence of how deeply in love her daughter is . She expresses he r chang e o f heart t o Mat t i n a sequenc e filmed fro m insid e Matt's study . The scen e begins with a close-up of a brief conversation between Joh n an d Johanna , wh o ar e outsid e o n a n adjoinin g terrace . Johanna admits to John that she had been worried that her parents might let her down and John teases her for covering up her nervousness with assurances that everythin g would be okay. This brief exchang e is itself sig nificant, for we are meant to se e how comfortable they are with one an other.11 The camer a then makes a reverse zoom that ends with a long shot of the two taken from slightl y behind and to the right of Christina, whose shoulders and head frame on e side of the sho t (se e Photo 6.2). A reverse shot to a close-up of a teary-eyed Christina is followed by a cut to Matt, who has been watching the scen e from behin d hi s wife; as he approaches her, she confesse s tha t sh e can n o longer oppos e thi s marriage , because she can see the joy that John ha s brought he r daughter.12 "Joey has always been a happy person," Christina says:

Suess Wke's Coning fe Dinner

\\t

But I don't think I've ever seen her so happy as she is now. And I have to be happy for her, Matt, and I am. And proud of the fact that we helped to make her. And whatever happens now, I feel glad that Joey's Joey.

Christina's speec h cites two reasons for her change of heart. The first- — a conventional one—is the obvious happiness that Joey's love for John has brought he r daughter. The secon d i s much mor e interesting and to th e point: She is proud of the fact that she has raised a daughter who does not attribute significanc e t o the color of her fiance's skin. Christina i s able t o give their marriag e her blessing because she has changed her way of per ceiving the couple; rejecting dominant social norms that would stigmatize the coupl e a s problematic, sh e comes to se e its interracial makeup as exemplary. Her daughte r ha s become th e embodimen t o f the color-blin d ideal with which the Draytons had raised her. Although Mat t eventually succumbs, he has a great deal more difficult y doing so. His initial reaction to his wife's about-face—"An d I' m thinkin g only of he r ow n welfare," he insists—i s t o reproac h Christin a fo r no t "having her [Joey's] best interest" in mind. At this critical juncture in her life, h e cannot conced e hi s twenty-three-year-old daughte r th e righ t t o make choices fo r herself an d liv e with their consequences. In hi s zeal to "protect" Johanna, he is oblivious to the effec t tha t hi s prohibition o f the marriage would have on their relationship. As Christina tries to make him see, rathe r than sparin g Johanna pain , Matt' s oppositio n wil l no t onl y prove futile, but will likely also cause her to doubt his integrity. Spencer Tracy had once before played the role of a father who had great difficulty acceptin g hi s daughter' s marriage . In The Father of the Bride, made in 1950 , th e proble m facin g its eponymous hero is his fear tha t his daughter's lov e for he r groo m wil l mea n an en d t o he r lov e for him . I n Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Matt's paternalis m surfaces i n hi s concern that th e young couple does no t understand the dept h o f the racis m tha t they will have to face in 1960s America. Although everyone else attributes Matt's opposition t o hi s daughter's marriag e to a n African America n to the hypocrisy of a white liberal patriarch, he thinks of himself as a realist, someone who is not simply smitten, as his wife is, by the sigh t of the tw o young lovers, but wh o ca n thin k rationall y abou t th e pro s an d con s o f their situation. 13 Interestingly enough, it is Mary Prentice, John's mother, who gets Matt to relent an d support th e marriage . Instead o f assaulting him with argu ments about the irrationality of his position, she addresses him in psychological terms, asking that he think about his position a s an aging male:

118

Saest Wke's Coming fe Dinner

Photo 6, 2 Christina observes the "passionate" couple

What happens to men when they grow old? Why do they forget everything? I believ e those two young people need each other like they need the ai r to breathe. Anybody can see that by just looking at them. But you and my husband, you might as well be blind. Mary here , an d Christin a earlier , hav e spoken u p fo r th e film's idea o f color-blindness, the idea l realize d b y Johanna an d John. Th e proble m with th e olde r generation , o r at least with it s mal e members, is precisely that they see something-race—where they should not. But now, the man who claims to see clearly is told tha t h e is blind, Mary challenges hi m t o see something else in the young lovers, something other than an affront t o the socia l norms that, ironically, he has himself dedicated hi s life to chal lenging. What Mary sees is the passio n th e tw o have for one other, and for he r this trumps all of Mart's objections. His problem , she continues, is "that me n gro w ol d an d when sexua l things n o longer matte r t o them , they forget it all, forget what passion is." Matt and John Sr . have forgotten the power of sexual passion : Now the two of you don't know. And the strange thing for your wife and me is that you don't even remember. If you did, how could you do what you are doing [i.e., stand in the way of the marriage]? Mary's hope is that Matt will be able to recall his own youthful passion.

8tt8$$ Who's Coming te 9tautt !1

9

And he does: "I admit that I hadn't considered it [i.e., love], hadn't even thought abou t it," he tells he r a s he addresse s th e assemble d cas t i n th e film's climactic scene. But 1 know exactly how he feels abou t her. And ther e Is nothing, absolutely nothing, tha t you r so n feel s abou t m y daughte r tha t I don' t fee l fo r Christina. Old? Yes. Burned out? Certainly. But I can tell you the memories are still there: clear, intact, indestructible.... The onl y thing that matters is what they feel and how much they feel for each other. And if it's half of what we felt, that's everything.

Matt has risen to Mary's challenge , hi s recollected passio n fo r Christin a awakening hi s sympathy fo r the youn g lovers. 14 Endorsin g a version o f the cliche that love conquers all, he argues: And I think that now, no matter what kind of case some bastard could make against your getting married, there would be only one thing worse, and that would be , knowing what you tw o are, knowing what you two have , an d knowing what you two feel, if you didn't get married.

Mart's speech affirm s th e powe r of love to transcen d whateve r obstacle s John an d Joey wil l encounter . Indeed, to insis t on thes e obstacles—as Matt had so recently done—one would have to be a bastard. This speech is the one moment in the film that contemporaneous crit ics singled out for praise, although thi s had more to do with the fac t tha t it is Spencer Tracy making this speech, and doing so under the eyes of his on-screen wif e an d off-scree n lover , Katharin e Hepburn. 15 Whe n Matt/Spencer talks about what h e and Christina/Katharine had, viewers could no t hel p bu t recal l th e man y classic romantic comedies i n whic h they ha d starre d together . Moreover, thi s was the las t speec h tha t Tracy was ever to make on film, for he was very ill at the time and died just days after the filming was completed. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner thus privilege s th e romanticall y consti tuted couple in order to defeat the racist attitudes o f nearly all its characters. Eithe r acquiesc e t o th e marriage , demonstrat e one' s understandin g that the love the two young people have for each other i s more significant than their racia l difference, o r else be seen as racist. What tension we feel as viewers is relieved onc e Mat t redeems himsel f i n our eye s an d prove s that he is not the hypocrite he appeared to be.16 Mart's change o f heart register s an important acknowledgmen t by the father of this film's bride, although th e sexist nature of the narrative makes

120

Sues* Who's Cemiag te Dinner

it difficult t o see this. For Matt to give the marriage his blessing, he needs to reconcil e himsel f to John's assumption of power over Johanna a s a replacement for his own. This is a difficult transitio n for fathers t o make in any case. Recalling his own youth and the love he felt a s a young man for his then-young wife, Matt accepts John a s an appropriate husband for his daughter. Looked a t in this way, the film instructs us on patriarchy's strategy for accommodating racia l integration. Rathe r than compromis e men's power over women, patriarchy will admi t black me n t o th e rank s of the privi leged. And like Matt, individual white men will be able to overcome their reluctance to do so by identifying i n their young black successors the pas sionate youths they themselves once were. Mart's transformation not onl y restores our faith i n him, it seals , in its makers' eyes, Guess Who's Coming to Dinners vindication of liberalism. Hi s opposition t o his daughter's marriage to a black man raised doubts abou t whether liberals could be trusted t o act on their principles . Those doubts have been laid to rest. But although th e film offers u s the satisfaction s of narrative closure, this does not mean that the film's vindication of liberalism i s successful o r eve n coherent . I n fact , ther e ar e a number of serious problems with Guess Who's Coming to Dinners politics—some internal t o liberalism, others the product of its makers' narrative and representational strategies—and I now turn to a consideration of some of these. Representing Racis m A first problem with Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, internal to th e libera l political orientatio n i t champions , is that i t understands racis m as an effect of the prejudices of individual social actors. For this reason, the film is unable to acknowledge racism's systematic, structural aspects. Thus, to say that Guess Who's Coming to Dinner represents antiblac k racis m a s essentially an effec t o f individual prejudice is to point out how the film locates racism's sourc e i n feelings , beliefs, and action s that unfairl y discriminat e against others because of such inherent characteristics as their skin color, physiognomy, and so on. There are two scenes at the very beginning of the film in which our unlikely couple provokes racist reactions.17 In the first, we see the taxi driver (John Hudkins) who take s th e lover s fro m th e airpor t t o th e Draytons ' home react with distast e when he glimpses their kis s in his rearview mir ror and then almost refuse the cab fare that John hands him. In the second

8tt8$$ Who's Coming te 9 taut t f t

!

of these racis t vignettes, Hillary , Christina's employe e at her gallery, cannot help showing her surprise and disapproval when she realizes that John and Johanna ar e involved wit h on e another . The narrativ e functio n o f these scene s is to build towar d th e Draytons ' encounter with thei r futur e son-in-law, but along the way they also exempEfy the film's understanding of racism. These minor characters betray their own race prejudice, for they see this relationshi p a s offensive becaus e of the differenc e i n its partners ' skin colors . The sam e analysis of racism as prejudice underlies the film's representation of Johanna, who embodies its conception of the solution to the problems i t addresses . Johanna's color-blindnes s is , at th e leve l of individual character, the necessar y corrective to the moral flaw of prejudice. Because Johanna i s color-blind, tha t is, fails t o perceive th e (socia l significance of the) difference between white and black, her actions are untainted by prejudice. She cannot treat black s as different fro m white s because she does not se e them a s different. Johanna' s color-blindness ca n b e presente d a s the solution to American racism precisely because the film views racism as prejudice based on skin color. It i s this understanding of racism and its antidote tha t accords with the liberalism tha t th e fil m set s ou t t o vindicate . Seeing racis m as prejudice makes it a problem i n the moral character of individual white Americans, a problem that ca n be solved b y pointing ou t tha t suc h attitudes contra dict a belief in the essential dignity and equality of all human beings. In th e mid-1940s, the Swedish sociologis t Gunna r Myrdal had articulated a n analysis of American racis m in just these terms , claiming in An American Dilemma that the "Negr o problem" was really a problem i n th e consciousness o f white Americans, a conflict betwee n thei r mora l ideals and their attitudes toward black Americans: The American Negro problem is a problem in the heart of the American. It is there that the interracial tension has its focus. It i s there that the decisive struggle goes on.... At botto m ou r problem i s th e mora l dilemma of the American—the conflic t betwee n hi s mora l valuations on variou s levels of consciousness and generality. The "America n Dilemma, " referred t o i n th e title of this book, is the ever-raging conflict between , on the on e hand, the valuations ... where the American thinks , talks, and acts under th e influ ence of high nationa l and Christian precepts , and, on th e other hand, th e valuations on specifi c plane s of individual and group living, where personal and local interests; economic, social, and sexual jealousies; considerations of community prestige an d conformity ; grou p prejudic e agains t particula r

122

Sues* Who's Cemiag te Dinner

persons o r type s of people; and al l sorts o f miscellaneous wants, impulses, and habits dominate his outlook.18

The conflic t between the Draytons' belief in equality and their racist reaction t o thei r daughter' s matc h i s a paradigmatic example of the predica ment Myrdal's famously influentia l stud y anatomized. And b y the 1960s , An American Dilemma had become American liberalism's commo n sense on the race issue,19 As self-evident , then, as Guess Who's Coming to Dinners understanding of racism as the effec t o f individual prejudice appeared, it i s nonetheles s inadequate. For even if Americans were suddenly to decide that skin color has no moral significance, there are structural aspects of racism that would not thereby be eradicated. For example, consider the Draytons' relationship with their maid, Tillie. The fil m present s he r rol e in th e Drayto n famil y a s that of a "mammy," that is, a black woman who has come to identify strongl y with the famil y she selflessl y nurtures. 20 Tillie's identification with th e Drayton s i s so strong that sh e attacks John fo r attemptin g t o marr y Johanna. To th e question, "I s there racis m in th e Draytons ' relationship wit h Tillie?" we might be inclined to respond, "No, for the Drayton s treat her as a family member, and without a hint o f prejudice." On the other hand , one could argue that the Draytons' attitude—and even the filmmakers'—toward her is, at times, patronizing. But putting thi s objection aside , it would not at all follo w tha t th e situatio n tha t link s Tillie t o th e Drayton s i s fre e o f racism. Black women like Tillie were employed as live-in maids by people in th e Draytons' social class a s a result o f historically conditione d eco nomic factors that limited their life chances. Without access to wider educational an d employmen t opportunities, the y were forced i n larg e num bers into low-paying, low-status jobs as domestics, service workers, and so on. So even if none of the Draytons discriminate against Tillie on the basis of her skin color, her role in the househol d is an invidious, racially determined effect o f the structure of American society. But consistent with the ontological individualism of liberal social theory, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner treats Tillie's situatio n a s unproblematic. If the film seeks to vindicate liberal integrationism by contriving a black male paragon, its success implies nothing about the racialize d division of labor of which the Drayton household is a microcosm. A conception of racism as a structural phenomenon privileging white Americans just because they are white is simply beyond the film's representational possibilities.

Suess Wke's Coning fe Dinner tt

3

Naturalizing Integratio n As th e civi l right s movemen t mad e clear , th e racia l integratio n o f American society could only be achieved by means of a political struggle . But Guess Who's Coming to Dinner naturalizes the process of integration b y treating i t a s the inevitabl e result of generational succession . In thi s way, despite its condemnatio n o f American societ y fo r it s racism , the film adopts narrativ e and representationa l strategie s tha t encourag e its audi ence to passively await the arriva l of integration rathe r than actively work for it s realization. This prospect o f an immanent generational eclips e of racism partakes of a general sense that Guess Who's Coming to Dinner conveys—and tha t marks the film as a product of the late 1960s—that its present is a time of ferment that is leaving the older generation behind . The film registers its sense of rapid social development by depicting Matt Drayton as bedeviled by the ubiquity of dizzying change. One exampl e of the wa y in which time ha s speeded up is the promi nence of air travel, from th e title sequence in which we see a large jet land at the San Francisco airport, to John's brief stopover before hurrying on to Geneva. The mer e forty minute s tha t i t take s for the Prentice s t o arrive from Lo s Angeles is mentioned a number of times. Other scene s stress instead change s in Mart's social environment—fo r example, in a discussion betwee n hi m an d John o f the racia l dilemma in which the y find themselves, John assure s Matt that thing s ar e changing for th e better . Matt's response, tha t nowher e ar e they changing quite as fast as in his own backyard, indicates his discomfort with the pace of these changes. I n a later scene , Matt an d hi s frien d Monsigno r Mik e Ryan (Cecil Kellaway ) argu e abou t Matt's oppositio n t o th e marriage , Matt protesting that he knows what the couple is up against: "I happen to know they wouldn't have a dog's chance. Not i n this country. Not i n the whol e stinking world." Bu t Mike persists: "They are this country, Matt. They'll change this stinking world." The chang e tha t count s mos t t o th e film's narrative, however, i s the emergence o f a postracist whit e youth . Whereas, wit h th e exceptio n o f Mike Ryan , all the member s of the parenta l generation ar e infected by bigotry, Johanna's generation i s presented a s color-blind, free o f their el ders' prejudices. 21 This is the meanin g of the sequenc e in which a white delivery boy (DUrville Martin) arrive s at the Draytons ' bringing steak s for th e ever-expanding list of dinner guests. When he agrees to provide a

124

Sues* Who's Cemiag te Dinner

lift fo r Tillies assistant , Doroth y (Barbar a Randolph), th e tw o exit, bo ogying to the rock-and-roll Hasting from hi s truck radio. These members of the "new" generation o f Americans seem oblivious to racial difference ; they simply enjoy dancing together to their music. This idea of an emer gent, color-blin d yout h cultur e i s central to th e film's representation o f racism a s a generational phenomenon , doomed t o pas s awa y as naturally as one generation succeeds another. In a rather mor e extended scene, in which Mat t an d Christina g o out for ic e cream, this naturalizatio n o f racism's eclipse i s reiterated, albei t with a slightly differen t emphasis . This time, Mart's belief that American racism justifies hi s opposition t o Johanna's marriage is expressly shown to be old-fashioned, out of step with th e times and, in particular, the youth culture o f the 1960s. 22 The drive-i n t o whic h the y g o is a hangout fo r teenagers, who si t around i n thei r ho t rod s an d sport s car s listening t o loud roc k musi c on thei r ca r radios . When th e young , gum-chewing carhop (Alexandr a Hay) asks for Mart's order, he tells her h e cannot remember what he had last time. After she lists a number of flavors, he decides he must have eaten Fresh Oregon Boysenberry , but when she brings him his cone, he takes a first taste and grimaces—this is the wrong flavor, After callin g the carhop back, intending to return the ice cream, he takes a second tast e an d decides tha t i t i s not s o bad afte r all . When sh e finally appears, he lamely informs he r that althoug h i t was not the flavor he had in mind , he like s it . As he an d Christin a exi t th e drive-in , h e tell s th e carhop to remind him of it the next time he comes in. As th e sequenc e progresses , th e carhop' s reactio n t o Matt changes . Initially polite, by the tim e he leaves, she has come to see him a s a trying old man whom sh e has nevertheless t o humor . Still the patriarc h i n his own household, in the broader social setting Matt no longer seems powerful bu t instead seems to be slipping into his dotage. The obviou s differences i n thei r taste s i n musi c and cars serve to em phasize th e generationa l ga p separatin g Mat t fro m th e teenager s b y whom h e i s surrounded a t th e drive-i n an d with who m hi s daughter i s identified. Mor e subtly , Matt i s portrayed a s unsettled b y change—he wants things t o remai n the same . On th e othe r hand , his reaction t o an unfamiliar ice cream flavor suggests that he is not entirely inflexible: Since he finds Fresh Orego n Boysenberr y delicious, despite his initial aversion, perhaps Johanna's chocolat e boyfrien d wil l be to hi s liking too onc e h e gets over his initial, and habitual, negative response to novelty. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner uses this analog y to develo p it s under standing of racism as an effect o f prejudice. Despite the seemingl y trivi-

Suess Wke's Coning fe Dinner t t

S

alizing nature of the parallel, it does dramatize an ontological assumption underlying the film's optimism. For whether someone finds a food pleas ing is generally assumed to be simply a subjective fact about that person , and a fact that can be changed. In drawing the analogy, the film proposes that a persons respons e to the race (i.e., skin color) of another is also just a matter of taste—of individual, subjective preference for white ski n over black o r vice versa—and s o as ephemeral a s a preference for on e o r an other ic e cream flavor. This undergird s th e film' s optimis m tha t racis m can b e eliminated . Mat t wil l eventuall y ge t use d t o th e colo r o f his daughter's husband , just a s he go t use d t o a n unfamilia r flavor of ice cream.23 Given the importance accorde d the themes of change and generationa l succession, i t i s surprising that these d o no t figur e a s reasons for Mart's change of heart. Although h e is repeatedly force d t o confess that he is at sea in a world that no longer quite accords with his expectations, h e never explicitly acknowledges what this implies about his own opposition t o the marriage, namely , that i t i s based o n empirical claims that d o not reflec t the realities of a rapidly changing society. The reaso n for this is that this aspect of the film is addressed exclusively to its viewers. By depicting racism as sclerotic, the audience is pressured to support a more up-to-date politics o f race. The onl y optio n th e film allowed 1960 s audience s who wanted to think of themselves as "with it, " in touch with American reality, was to embrace the color-blindness th e film associates with the hip younger generation. Although Mat t is deeply troubled ove r hi s daughter s prospects , th e film' s confidenc e tha t racis m i s bound t o disappea r throug h generationa l successio n sough t t o reassure that audience about the young couple's fate , But if there i s something to be said for the film's optimism, its strategy of representation give s the audienc e a n easy out. Fo r its white member s are placed i n th e comfortabl e positio n o f identifying themselves a s sup porters o f integration whil e believing that nothin g i s required of them t o bring it about. If racism will be eliminated throug h th e natural process of generational succession, what need is there for social activism? So, despite their restored fait h in Matt at the film's end, viewers can also feel superio r to him , fo r they kno w tha t hi s anguis h is unnecessary, much ad o abou t nothing. The film's premature hopes fo r an inevitable eclipse of racism allow its white viewer s to evade the critical self-scrutin y that would be en tailed b y a serious confrontation wit h racism ; instead, the y ar e permitted to remai n a s spectator s whil e momentou s struggle s ove r th e fat e o f America's Second Reconstruction rag e about them .

124

Saest Wke's Coming fe Dinner Conflicting Strategie s

The las t problem with Guess Who's Coming to Dinner that I shall discuss, a conflict betwee n it s representationa l an d narrativ e strategies, arises because o f its makers ' desire t o preemp t racis t reactions t o th e on-scree n portrayal of a passionate interracial romance. As a result, the film's narrative insistence on the passion rings hollow, for its representational strategy denies the audience convincing visual confirmation. The attemp t to defeat racist outrage thus results in the sacrifice of the film's coherence. We hav e seen that th e maker s of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner were acutely aware that thei r stor y of a love affair betwee n a black man an d a blonde woman skirte d dangerousl y close to on e of the centra l racist apparitions i n America' s psyche , an apparitio n th e movi e version of which the fil m schola r Donal d Bogl e ha s called "th e bruta l black buck" and which he traces back to D. W. Griffith's 191 5 classic , Birth of a Nation: Bucks ar e alway s big , baaddd niggers , oversexed an d savage , violent an d frenzied a s they lust for white flesh,.. . Griffit h playe d o n th e myt h of th e Negro's high-powered sexuality , then articulate d th e grea t white fea r that every black man longs for a white woman. Underlying the fea r was the as sumption that the white woman was the ultimate in female desirability, herself a symbol of white pride, power, and beauty.... Thus the black bucks of the film are psychopaths, one [Gus] always panting and salivating, the other [Silas Lynch] forever stiffenin g hi s body as if the mer e presence of a white woman in the same room could bring him to a sexual climax. Griffith playe d hard on the bestiality of his black villainous bucks and used it to arouse hatred.24 The blac k male is in effect demonized , represented as in the grip of a sexuality both viciou s and, in the presenc e of white women, uncontrollable, As Bogle points out, this involves the fantasy that white women possess a universal appeal, to which black males are particularly vulnerable. Even though a half century separates Birth of a Nation from Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, it was no mistake to fear that many viewers would still, in 1967 , identif y John Prentic e wit h th e demoni c sexualit y of Griffith' s blackface villains. If the film was to achiev e its political objectives , it ha d to tell its story in a way that would not activat e this most powerful o f all racist tropes; otherwise the audienc e would not accep t John an d Johanna as romantic partners. Earlier, we saw Sidney Pokier explai n that th e fil m coul d no t address the issu e of interracial romance squarely. We ar e now able to understand

8tt8$$ Who's Coming te 9tautt It

?

more precisely why. The continuin g hold on the white imagination of the figure of the brutal black buck meant that the film had to develop a strategy for defusing viewer aversion and hostility t o the representatio n o f an attractive black male romantically involved with a beautiful, young white woman. To squar e this circle, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner must visually portray the passio n between John an d Johanna-—about which we hear so much—with extraordinary discretion. Hence, the lengths to which it goes to exceptionaliz e John, to dissociat e hi m from those ravenou s black despoilers of white womanhood feature d in Birth of a Nation. Only a lunatic racist could suspect this highly educated and refined man of an uncontrol lable sexual desire for white women. The film includes a number of specific narrativ e elements the sole purpose of which is to dissociate John fro m th e stereotyp e o f black male sexuality. For example, early in th e film , he r mothe r ask s Johanna whether she and John have slept together, Johanna explains that they have not, but adds that i t i s John—and no t she—wh o is responsible fo r this. This exchange serves no function othe r than that of acquitting John of lusting after white flesh. In a similar vein, to emphasize that John's sexual interest is not limite d t o whit e women, h e i s show n appreciativel y eyeing Tillie's young assistant, Dorothy. But by far the mos t important of these obliquities is Guess Who's Coming to Dinners determinedly desexualize d representation of its central love affair. To prevent John fro m bein g seen as sexually voracious, we are offere d no visual evidence of his passion for Johanna, For example, in the terrac e scene discussed earlier tha t Christina , Matt , and we witness throug h a window, the tw o behave in suc h adolescent term s that th e actor s hav e trouble rendering their lines convincingly. The importanc e o f thes e representationa l choices , understandabl e though the y are, is that what we see on-screen contradicts what we hear in the film's dialogue. Remembe r tha t centra l t o it s explanatio n o f first Christina's an d then Mart's change of heart is the evidence they are given for th e unlikel y couple's passionat e attachmen t t o on e another . But i t is difficult t o credit these claims given the total lack of visible erotic energ y between John an d Johanna, eve n allowing for the greater sexual reticence one would expect in a film made in 1967. The film's attempt to make their passion a decisive reason for supporting th e relationshi p find s n o direct support in the viewers' experience. To repeat, my goal in exposing these inconsistencies has not been to establish tha t Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is reall y a bad film . Afte r all , there seem s nearl y unanimous agreement amon g both film scholars an d

ItS

Saest Wka's Coming fe Dinner

the contemporaneous critics that the film is deeply flawed. But what nei ther these writers nor the film's makers have acknowledged is the extent to which this is due to the desire to achieve popular success with an audience whose racist attitudes mad e it difficult t o believably portray a grand passion between a black ma n an d a white woman. If Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is neutered by the contradictio n betwee n its narrative and repre sentational strategies, tha t i s less evidence of inferior filmmaking than o f the highly problematic project underlying it. Indeed, in my view, the film warrants mor e sympathetic treatmen t tha n man y of its dismissive critics allow, if only becaus e the problemati c socia l contex t i n whic h an d fo r which the film was made deserves to be factored into an assessment of its merit. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, then, is an appropriate film with which to begin our study of the interracia l unlikely couple film for it bears witness to the complex political an d aesthetic cross-currents such films must navigate. The legac y of racism is not simpl y a subject at issue in thei r narra tives, it is inscribed in the very means by which such films tell their stories of unlikely love, stories in whic h the y seek to asses s the significanc e o f racism and the prospects for its elimination.

Notes 1. Recently, there ha s been a growing recognitio n tha t "race " is a social con struction i n that there is no biological reality supporting the classificatio n o f hu man being s into differen t races . Theorists hav e reacted in differen t ways , some urging that the term be simply eschewed, others that the term always be placed in quotation marks. Although I continue to use the term "race" without any special markers, I acknowledge the constructed nature of race. For discussion of these issues, see, for example, Kwam e Anthony Appiah, In My Father's Home: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1992), and David Theo Goldberg , Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning (Oxford , UK, and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993). 2. "Spense and Supergirl," Newsweek, Decembe r 25,1967, p. 70. 3. Donald Bogle , Toms, Coons, Mulattos, Mammies, and Bucks: An Interpretive History ofBlacki in American Films (New York: Continuum, 1996), p. 217. 4. Thomas Cripps , Making Movies Black: The Hollywood Message Movie from World War II to the Civil Rights Era (Ne w Yor k an d Oxford , UK : Oxfor d University Press, 1993), p. 289. 5. Stanley Kramer with Thomas M . CoSey,JMad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: A Life in Hollywood (Ne w York: Harcourt Brace & Company: 1997) , p. 218. There is some question abou t th e validit y of Kramer's claim and , indeed, whether th e

8tt8$$ Who's Coming te 9tautt tt

9

film doe s no t compromis e itsel f b y using a n interracia l couple compose d o f a black man and a white woman to question th e viability of liberal mtegrationism, since such a couple represents the racist fantasy of what is at stake in the politic s of integration mor e generally, namely, giving Hack men access to white women, a view fatefally recorded , for example, in Birth of a Nation (1915). 6. Quoted i n Donal d Spoto , Stanley Kramer; Film Maker (Ne w York: G, P. Putnam's Sons, 1978), pp. 275-276. 7. Spoto, Stanley Kramer, pp. 276—277. 8. This i s recognize d b y Stanle y Kauffman n ("Recen t Wars, " The Neiv Republic, Decembe r 16 , 1967, pp . 1 9 and 30 ) an d Arthu r Knigh t ("The Ne w Look," Saturday Review, December 16,1967 , p. 47). 9. All quotations fro m Guess Who's Coming to Dinner are from my transcriptio n of the film's sound track, 10. The tim e pressures the Draytons are under in deciding whether to approve the marriage increase during the course of the film when Johanna decide s to accompany John t o Geneva tha t sam e evening rather than join him i n a couple of weeks. 11. This scene is a good example of the disparity between the actual presentation of the romantic relationship—one characterized mor e by their teasing affec tion tha n dee p passion—and th e paean s t o tha t passio n tha t other character s sing. 1 discuss this issue at length later in this chapter. 12. The long reverse zoom causes the audience to view the young couple's easy tenderness with one another as if seen through Christina' s eyes. The intende d re sult is that we should experience her sentiments as our own. 13. Even in 1991, there was still a strong aversion among whites to interracial marriage. According t o th e Genera l Socia l Surve y reported i n th e New York Times, Decembe r 2 , 1992, 20 percent o f whites though t tha t black-whit e mar riages should b e illegal, and 66 percent sai d they would "oppose a close relative's marrying a black person." These rather soberin g figures should mak e us realize that there is still a strong sense among white Americans that interracial marriages are wrong, so that, face th e film, the altitudes Matt Drayton imputes to his fellow white Americans to justify his position hav e persisted. 14. The specifi c focus of Mary's claim—that male impotence is responsible for the two fathers' lack of sympathy for the couple—is transformed in Matt's speech into a claim about their inability to remember the significanc e of romantic love. 15. See, for example, Brendan Gill, "Good Causes," The New Yorker, Decembe r 16,1967, pp. 108-110. 16. John Prentic e Sr . has not change d his min d by the en d o f the film , bu t Matt patronizingly assure s everyone that he will. 17. It migh t see m problematic t o assum e that a character's disapproval of this interracial couple i s necessarily a sign o f his or her racism, since there are othe r grounds on which to oppose exogamous (cross-group) marriage . But in the con text of racist Americ a i n th e 1960s , white oppositio n t o a n interracial coupl e

I JO

Saest Wka's Coming fe Dinner

could be used as an index of racism. Generally, an individual's reservations about exogamous marriage can stem from othe r factors, such as a desire to preserve an imperiled group . 18. Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1944), p. Ixxi. 19. An index of the influenc e of this study is its citation i n footnote 11 of the Supreme Court's decision i n Brown versus Board of Education ofTopeka, 34 7 U.S . 483,74 S.Ct. 686 , in 1954 . 20. The mamm y is one of the central stereotypes discussed by Donald Bogle in Toms, Coons, Mulattos, Mammies, and Bucks. For a discussion of the realit y behind this stereotype, se e Deborah Gra y White, Ain't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South (New York and London: W. W. Norto n & Co. , 1985) , pp. 46-61. 21. From thi s point o f Yiew, the mos t significan t fact abou t John Prentic e is that, at thirty-seven, he stands between the two generations of adults/parents and youths/children. Th e reaso n fo r this i s that th e generationa l structur e of th e Drayton famil y doe s no t fi t tha t o f th e broade r society. Although Johann a i s twenty-three, he r naivete makes her seem younger than that. The parental gener ation, however, is actually much older than is usual. That is, her parents are more of the age of standard grandparents. This nuclear family spans three generations, with the absent middle generation represented only by the intrusion of this black man. It i s worth remembering that Martin Luthe r Kin g Jr. was a member of this middle generation. 22. Released in 1967, the means the film uses to signify the 1960s are not thos e that we tend now to associate with that era. 23. It is worth noting explicitly that Matt's understanding of prejudice as resistant to generational eclipse has proved more prescient than the film's own view. 24. Bogle, Toms, Coons, Mulattos, Mammies, and Bucks, pp. 13—14 .

7 Junjh Fev&r S o u r i n g on Forbidden Fruit

Angle, this love will overcom e everythin g is in Walt Disne y films. I've always hated Disney films,,, , Yo u got with , me despite you r family because you were curious about black... and I was curious about white.1 With these words, Flipper Purify (Wesle y Snipes) announces to his lover, Angela Tucci (Annabella Sciorra), that their affair, which forms th e narrative center of Spike Lee's film Jung/e Fever (1991), must end. Angle's hope that their liaison might continue is a Disneyesque fantasy , he implies, alluding to the unrealism characteristic of Hollywood romances. And here , although Flippe r supplie s n o specifi c reference, he mus t have in min d films—like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner—in whic h lov e triumphs over adversity. According t o Flipper , the reaso n they embarked on their affai r was their curiosity about what it would be like to have sex with a member of another racial group. The suspicio n that, in this scene, Flipper serves as a mouthpiece for the film's director i s confirmed by a n interview i n which Spik e Le e echoe s Flipper's disparaging remarks about standard Hollywood fare : I a m a romantic at heart. I do believe now, as Luther Vandros s [a character in Lee's film, Do The Right Thing (1989)] says, in the powe r of love. But a t the same time, we have to make a distinction between that which is real and that fake Hollywood , Walt Disney walk into the sunset hand in hand. That shit's never been real.2 131

ti2

Jungle Fever

Lee's explanation of why the affai r ha d to end again echoes Flipper's lines: This film Is about two people who are attracted to each other because of sexual mythology. She's attracted to him because she's been told that black men know how to fack. He's attracted to her because all his life he' s been bombarded wit h images of white women being the epitom e of beauty and th e standard that everything else must be measured against. 3

Thus, according to Lee, sexual mythology creates the desire that his characters feel for one another. As a result, each i s not reall y interested i n th e other a s an individua l but rathe r a s merely the embodimen t o f a socia l stereotype. Onc e thei r curiosity has been sated, there is no reason for the affair t o continue. Lee's use of the expressio n "jungle fever" as the titl e of his film accords with this analysis. The term originated during the 1920s, the period of the Harlem Renaissance , and was used in connection wit h those whites who ventured Uptown for a taste of its club scene. The associatio n is of blacks with the jungle, hence, with nature—an d mor e to th e point , with unin hibited sexuality . In other words, the black body—exotic, forbidden, alluring—is the object of the desire of those whites suffering fro m jungle fever. Lee's appropriation o f the term is meant ironically, Flipper's attraction t o Angie being a racially inverted version of the phenomenon. By presenting Flipper's affair a s the result of his desire to experience the Other socially denied to Him., Jungle Fever invokes the trope of the forbidden fruit to tell the story of its unlikely couple. The lur e of forbidden frui t is created by the interdictio n agains t eating it. But the actua l eating ever proves a disappointment, fo r the frui t doe s no t have—canno t have—the sweetness anticipated . Th e mora l is thus a conservative one: Those who have tasted se x with the Other return to socially sanctioned arrangements now convinced of their Tightness . Given this narrative trajectory, the un likely couple will help one or both o f its partners to come to a clearer understanding of who they really are, but cannot in the end itself function as a source of support an d affirmation fo r either. Rather , the paltriness of its satisfactions allow s the partner s t o se e how integral thei r sociall y appro priate relationships ar e to their authentic selves, In what I call the "official interpretation, " Jungle Fever employs the narrative figure of the forbidden fruit t o focus attentio n o n the way in which racial stereotypes produc e the attractio n tha t lead s t o th e affai r betwee n Flipper an d Angie. The film itself tells a deeper and more complex story, however, one only partially accounted for by the officia l interpretation .

Jungle fever 13

3

There are two important elements to this unlikely romance that the official interpretation does not acknowledge: First, in telling Flipper's story, Jungle Fever is making a clear political statement about the nee d for separatism if blacks are to achieve racial equality with whites; second, the offi cial interpretation fail s t o recognize that Angle's perspective on the affai r is very different fro m Flipper's , The fil m present s Flipper' s interest i n Angle a s an extension o f his overall attemp t t o integrat e int o whit e society , an attemp t tha t prove s a failure. From this point of view, the film is the stor y of Flipper's growin g realization o f the futilit y o f the projec t of integration an d his consequent embrace of black separatism. This aspect of Jungle Fever advances an im plicit critique of the liberal politics of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and of blacks like John Prentice who think that integration provides the solution to America's race problem.4 Jungle Fever argues that since white America cannot shed its racism, integrationism i s a political strateg y that will not bring blacks the equality they seek. Flipper's affai r wit h Angle serves as one important elemen t of the proces s of self-exploration tha t lead s him both t o acknowledg e this and to identif y with the entir e black community as a whole. In addition , Jungle Fever ridicule s Guess Who's Coming to Dinners view that "love is all there is, " insisting that othe r socia l practices an d institution s can make equally powerful claim s on people's loyalties . Although th e forma l structur e of the film—which stresses the parallels between Flipper' s an d Angie's lives—suggest s that thei r situation s are fundamentally alike , Angie's class, gender, and ethnicity make her experi ence of the affai r ver y different fro m his . Flipper claims that h e was just curious abou t her a s a white woman, but Angl e actuall y falls i n love. I n making thi s plausible , Jungle Fever critique s th e machism o of Italia n American males. For Angle, Flipper's identit y as a black is less important than hi s wa y of being a man , so differen t fro m wha t sh e see s i n he r Bensonhurst neighborhoo d o f Brooklyn. Angle is attracted t o Flipper' s mode of masculinity because it is more adequate to her own sense of what she wants in a partner. So although Flipper's entrance into the affai r signifie s further alienatio n from hi s blackness, Angie's acceptanc e of Flipper a s a lover marks a positive step in her own self-development, despite the film's inability to find a narrative closure that can acknowledge this. Just as important a s the film's critique o f black males who pursu e integration i s its exploratio n o f th e racist and sexist masculinity of working-class, Italian American males.

ti4

Jungle Fever

Jungle Fever is thus a more complex and sociall y critical fil m than it s formidably intelligen t directo r allows . Desiring t o tel l a story that ha s a simple political moral , yet one that illuminate s the realitie s that resulte d in th e bruta l murde r of Yusuf Hawkins, a young black who was lookin g for a used car in Bensonhurst, Lee has crafted a film that insistently belies his own perspective on it. The conflic t between Lee's tw o intentions—to show that black men belong in the black community beside black women and to explain the race hatred that led to the bludgeoning o f Hawkins— produces a film that, fo r al l its shortcomings , present s interesting angles on both the black and white communities on which it focuses .

Being Black in White America One wa y to thin k o f Jungle Fevers socia l analysi s would be t o trea t th e demise of the Flipper- Angie couple as an instance of a general truth tha t interracial romance s are doomed b y antiblack racism . The film' s roug h treatment o f Angie lend s emotiona l credenc e to th e claim , for one doe s feel the plot of the film is being made to subserve an ideological intention . So broad a claim would be misleading, however , for the film is not con cerned with th e genera l question o f whether interracia l couples ca n sur vive in a racist society. Indeed, the film portrays a romance between white Paulie Carbon e (Joh n Turturro) and black Orin Goode (Tyra Ferrell) i n sympathetic terms. In discussing the issue of the film's attitude toward in terracial couples, Spike Lee has pointed to this subplot to rebut the charge that th e fil m i s a blanket indictmen t o f interracial romance . Paulie an d Orin's relationshi p i s different fro m Flippe r an d Angie' s becaus e "their initial attractio n i s based o n genuin e feelings " rather tha n o n sexua l mythology.5 In distinguishin g interracia l couple s o n th e basi s of the ground s for their partners ' attractio n t o one another, Lee thus distances himsel f fro m the universa l oppositio n t o interracia l romanc e tha t som e Africa n American leaders hav e maintained. Malcolm X , fo r example , declared, "We d o oppos e intermarriage . We ar e a s much against intermarriag e as we ar e against al l of the othe r injustice s that ou r peopl e hav e encountered."6 Lee's inclusion of the Paulie-Ori n couple In Jungle Fever empha sizes his rejection of such global condemnation of interracial love. But how , then, ar e we to understan d th e broade r significanc e o f th e film's portrayal of the failur e o f the Flipper-Angi e couple? Although th e complexities introduced b y its maker's tangled intention s mak e it impos-

Jungle fever 1

3S

sible to give a simple answer to this question , we can begin by attendin g to th e way Flipper's experience of the relationshi p is represented. As we have seen, there is a virtual identity between Spik e Lee's and Flipper s explanations of what th e affai r i s about. By delving more deeply into thei r perspective o n th e affair , w e will be abl e t o unpac k the moral/politica l message the film wishes to communicate. Flipper i s the archetypal "buppie"—black urban professional. Although married t o a (light-skinned) African America n woman, he ha s achieved professional succes s workin g a s a n architec t i n a n all-whit e firm . Although h e attempts t o maintain a sense of himself as a black man—by requesting, for example, an African American secretary—Flipper wants to make it i n the whit e world. Indeed , by most measure s h e ha s succeeded admirably, for his work allows him t o ensure a high standard of living for his wife an d daughter in the elite Suga r Hill section of Harlem. Flipper' s situation at the outset of the film suggests that integration int o American society is a possibility for those blacks who work hard. The plot of the film shows that this premise is incorrect. Because whites are an d will remai n racist, th e goa l o f integratio n canno t b e realized . Flipper will not achieve the sort of acceptance by whites that he has struggled t o get, fo r he will never be treated a s an equal. Whites in the 1990 s may allo w blacks—o r a t least , certain blacks— a large r piec e o f the pi e than i n the day s of legal segregation, bu t the y will no t accor d the m th e equality that is the measur e of a full y integrate d societ y that ha s elimi nated racial hierarchy.7 The film's attitude toward integration conie s out very clearly in the subplot that revolves around Flipper's job at Mast an d Covington. When the film opens, Flipper has been working at the firm since its founding and is responsible fo r muc h of its success . Nonetheless , th e firm' s tw o white partners do not give him the respect he thinks he deserves. This becomes clear when they hire a white secretary for him, disregarding his request t o fill the positio n wit h a "sister." When the y respon d t o hi s protests wit h specious argument s about alway s hiring th e bes t perso n fo r the job, h e sees condescension towar d himsel f and cynicism toward th e demand s of African Americans to be treated fairly . As a result of this slight, Flipper decides to ask to be made a partner. In a scene sho t i n a series of reversing 360-degree pans , Flipper remind s his bosses tha t h e playe d an important rol e i n th e firm's rise and announces that the time has come for him to be rewarded. Playing good cop-bad cop, the tw o partners alternately dismiss his demand; assure him of their hig h

IJ6

Jungle Fever

regard; and urge that i f he will just remain patient, they will someday give him the recognition h e seeks. Infuriated by their attitude, Flipper quits . In th e followin g scene—in which Flippe r tells hi s friend Cyrus (Spik e Lee) about his affair wit h Angie—Flipper expands on his plans now that he has left th e firm. Instead o f worrying about being unemployed, he expresses his intention t o start a firm of his own, one in which he will reap the benefits of his labor. Even a schematic renderin g o f this subplo t make s it clea r tha t i t i s meant to establish the futility of African Americans' attempts t o integrat e into white society. The patronizing comment s of Flipper's bosses substan tiate the film's view that althoug h white Americans benefit from the skills and effort s o f African Americans, they ar e not capabl e o f shedding thei r racist attitudes . Even thoug h Flippe r ha s mad e importan t contribution s to th e firm, its two white partner s ar e intent on retaining contro l o f the firm they se e themselves a s having built. The onl y way a black ma n ca n achieve equality in American society , the fil m suggests , is by forging his own destiny independent of whites—a strategy that Flipper opts for when he decides to start his own architectural firm. This subplot , a n allegor y of the situatio n o f African Americans in th e United States , i s meant to sho w that althoug h som e African Americans may b e allowe d a certain measur e of succes s in whit e society , they will never be treated a s equals. White Americans remain racist despite the ef forts of intelligent an d competent Africa n American coworkers . In makin g this argument , Jungle Fever repeats a view of the persistenc e of white-American racis m that ha s man y exponents i n scholarl y circles. For example, i n respondin g t o William Juliu s Wilson's influentia l The Declining Significance of Race, Kenneth B . Clark ha s written, "I t i s a fac t that in the struggl e for racial justice, American blacks are now confronted with mor e subtle an d sophisticate d manifestation s of racism." Going o n to discus s the way s i n whic h suc h racis m i s manifested i n relatio n t o blacks in high-status jobs, he writes, Tokenism, rather tha n genuin e compliance with Affirmativ e Actio n an d Equal Employment Opportunity requirements, remains the rul e in spite of the Civi l Rights Act o f 1964 . In spit e of some few exceptions, even thes e few blacks [in executive, managerial, and policymaking positions] are not yet fully accepte d i n term s of their qualities an d characteristic s a s individuals. They tend to be perceived as symbols.... Not infrequentl y these blacks are not hel d t o th e sam e standar d o f on-the-job performance ; the y ar e either evaluated more severely or more leniently than others.8

Jungle fever 1

37

The subplo t concernin g Flipper' s job seem s devised t o illustrat e Clark' s point. The racis m o f his white bosses , althoug h somewha t subtle r tha n outright prejudice , reveals the hollow promise of integration . This belie f i n th e intractabilit y o f white racis m clearly distinguishe s Jungle Fevers social analysis from Guess Who's Coming to Dinners. Relying on Gunna r Myrdal's view that th e racis m of white Americans would be defeated b y the "hig h nationa l an d Christia n precepts " they profess, 9 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner espouses a confident integrationism. Jungle Fevers les s sanguine view of white America' s willingnes s t o chang e re flects bitte r historica l experience . Three decade s afte r th e civi l right s movement's successfu l challeng e t o th e lega l framewor k of America's racial hierarchy, African Americans remain subject to racial prejudice and discrimination. Jungle Fever canno t shar e th e optimis m o f Guess Who's Coming to Dinner tha t whit e American s wil l finall y accep t Africa n Americans as fully equal citizens of the Republic . FEpper's response to his employers' racism exemplifies the self-hel p phi losophy o f black nationalism , th e centra l tene t o f which i s that African Americans need to control the economies of their own communities. In different contexts and for various reasons, this separatist strateg y has been ad vocated b y blac k nationalist s sinc e a t leas t th e tim e o f Booke r T . Washington, wh o argued that the bes t mean s of "elevating" th e bkck race was for blacks to "own and operate the mos t successful farm s [an d become] the largest tax-payers," for political right s and recognition wil l then follow. 10 In the 1910 s an d 1920s, Marcus Garve y promoted "economi c cooperatio n through racial solidarity" as the means that would allow American blacks to spearhead the redemptio n o f Africa.11 Mor e recen t black nationalist s have returned to Washington's origina l vision of economic separatism as the only viable strategy for ameliorating the situation of blacks in America. For example, in words that strikingly echo those of Washington, Malcolm X declared, When the black man in this country awakens, becomes intellectually mature and able to think for himself, you will then see that the only way he will become independent and recognized as a human being on the basis of equality with all other human beings, he has to have what they have and he has to be doing for himself what others are doing for themselves.12 In a similar vein, Elija h Muhammad, Malcolm' s mentor , repeatedly em phasized the nee d for economic self-help : The whit e Man spend s his money with his own kind, which is natural. You, too, mus t do this. Help to make jobs for your own kind. Take a lesson fro m

ti8

Jungle Fever

the Chinese an d Japanese, the Puerto Rican and the Cubans, and go all out and suppor t your own kind.... The s o called American Negro ... is today in th e wors t economi c conditio n o f an y human being i n th e wildernes s of North America . Unemployment is mounting and he feels i t worst.... You, the blac k Man, ar e the onl y member of the huma n race that deliberatel y walks past the place of business of one of your own kind—a black man, and spend your dollars with your natural enemy,13

Taking fo r granted th e racis m of white Americans , Elija h Muhamma d here urge s his black followers to band togethe r t o ameliorat e th e condition of black America. Jungle Fevers advocac y of a similar economic strateg y allie s its political perspective with that of black nationalism. The film does more than sim ply portray Flipper's eagernes s to succeed in the white world, however; it positions hi s integrationist ambitions historicall y as a response t o the in effective an d morally suspect attitudes o f his parents' generation. The el der Purifys ar e meant to embody two no-longer relevant models of blackness, an d i t i s agains t thi s backgroun d o f historica l irrelevanc e tha t Flipper's pursui t o f integratio n i s presented . The proble m wit h thi s choice, accordin g to th e film, is that i t i s achieved a t the expens e of his identity as a black man. The fil m therefor e require s him t o fin d a way of being-in-the-world that allows him to embrace his blackness. Flipper's father , the Goo d Reveren d Doctor (Ossi e Davis) , provides a first mode l of blackness. When we initially encounte r him , the Goo d Reverend Docto r i s reading alou d th e passag e fro m 1 Corinthians i n which Paul explains the origi n o f marriage: "Nevertheless, to avoid forni cation, le t ever y man hav e his ow n wife, an d le t ever y woman have her own husband." 14 The Goo d Reveren d Doctor lives in a world h e cannot fathom withou t th e mora l guidance provide d by the Bible . Through it s portrait o f the Good Reverend Doctor, the film depicts a black religiosity of bombast, out of touch with the real problems o f contemporary African American life : I n a later scene , FEpper angril y ask s his father , "Do you ever just talk?" For this obdurate patriarch, the Devil i s responsible for all those who stray from th e path of Biblical righteousness. Because Flipper believes that individuals are alone responsible for what they do, he sees his father's use of religion as an evasion. Flipper's long-sufferin g mother, Lucind a (Ruby Dee), provide s a sec ond mode l o f blackness. The but t o f indignities fro m bot h he r husband and he r children , she simply accepts the m fo r the sak e of the illusio n o f domestic peace . This woman wants to do the righ t thin g fo r her family , but sh e can offer the m only an all-excusing, ineffectual love .

Jeagle Fever IJ

9

The futilit y of both model s is established throug h the subplot involving Gator (Samue l L. Jackson), Flipper's olde r brothe r an d a crack addict. When Gato r arrive s at his parents' apartment, his father orders him fro m the hous e becaus e h e sing s an d dances , ungodl y behavio r th e Goo d Reverend Doctor cannot condone. But his mother slip s him some money and then lies to her husband about what she has done, Both ways of coping with Gator ar e inadequate. Banning him from hi s home thrusts him deeper into the world of drugs that is his undoing, (As if this were not clear, the Good Reverend Doctor winds up killing his own son without regret to keep him out of the house.) But providing him with money to feed his habit, although it sustains the familial connection, doe s nothing to confront the problem of drugs itself. In fact, Lucinda only succeeds in deceiving herself as well as her husband about what Gato r really needs. Since neithe r religiou s escapis m nor uncritica l familial protectivenes s are adequat e to th e comple x an d difficul t realitie s o f being a n ambitiou s young black in th e 1990s , Flipper's need t o forg e a new mode of life fo r himself i s understandable. Given thes e alternatives , the optio n o f integrating into white society seems eminently preferable.

The Educatio n o f Flippe r Purif y Even a s Jungle Fever portrays Flipper' s pursui t o f integratio n int o th e world o f white professionalism , it als o demonstrates th e futilit y of his striving. In depicting his affair wit h Angie, the film deepens its critique of Flipper's integrationism b y expanding it beyond his work life: Flipper, i t argues, has taken this path because of his black self-hatred. By the end of the film, Jungle Fever shows him identifying with the black community as a whole, achieving thereby a more adequate sense of self. Angela Tucci i s the whit e tem p Flipper's bosse s hav e hired agains t his wishes. Although upse t tha t the y have no t honore d hi s reques t fo r an African American , he decides not to push the issue. Their affair occur s as a resul t of an intimacy that develop s between the m a s they eat take-ou t meals together whil e working late. Angie prefers long hour s at the offic e to cookin g dinne r for her fathe r and brothers. A s the y get t o kno w one another, desire begins to stir. After a third late night, as Angie prepares to leave, Flippe r volunteers, "Yo u know, Angie, I've neve r cheated o n m y wife before. " She turns t o go , he call s he r back , the tw o kiss , and the y make love on his drafting table (see Photo 7.1) .

140

Jungle Fever

Photo 7. 1 Tasting forbidde n frui t

As w e hav e seen I n Chapte r 6 , the maker s of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner were so concerned about white outrage over the on-screen presen tation o f a sexually potent blac k male that the y went ou t o f their way to desexualize John, the Sidne y Pokier character; in this scene of heated in terracial love making, Flipper's sexuality is frankly depicted . There ar e a number of reason s wh y Jungle Fever could allo w itsel f a more directly sexual representation o f its unlikely relationship than could Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. First, the intervenin g years have seen a significant relaxatio n i n th e standard s of what ca n b e show n on-screen , Jungle Fever thus benefits from an overall atmosphere o f greater freedom in the treatment of sexuality. Second, insofar as there has been a decline in prejudice among those segments of American society likely to see a Spike Lee film , ther e i s less chance tha t a n interracial sex scene will be nega tively received. Furthermore, th e fac t tha t Le e i s a self-consciously black filmmaker means that he is not exclusively concerned—not even primarily concerned—with the responses of his white audience. The questio n o f why Flipper actuall y starts thi s affai r i s one th e film never answers directly. From the beginning, Flipper's relationship with his

Jungle fever 14

1

wife, Dre w (Lonett e McKee), is portrayed i n idylli c terms . We first see them as the camera tracks into their bedroom to reveal the couple making love. Their early morning love making is passionate and, we later learn, a daily occurrence . Evidently , marita l difficulties ar e not th e motiv e fo r Flippers dalliance. Whenever th e question of why he is involved with Angle is put to him, Flipper become s inarticulate. With his friend Cyrus , Flipper says , "I have to admit , I've alway s been curiou s about Caucasia n women." When hi s brother, Gator , find s Angi e i n Flipper' s Greenwic h Villag e apartment , Flipper mumble s in discomfort , "Gator, it' s complex , man." And whe n Angie respond s t o Flipper' s assurance s that h e has a great marriag e and loves his wife by asking what he is doing with her, the best he can manage is, "I honestly don't know. " The onl y real explanation he offer s i s "jungle fever"—he was drawn into their affai r b y a desire to see what it would be like to have sex with a white woman. But eve n i f Flippers accoun t of his own motivatio n i s accurate, it stil l leaves to o muc h unexplained . More ligh t i s she d o n thi s questio n b y Flipper's now-estranged wife, Drew, who throws him out of the hous e after learning of the affair . When Flippe r approache s her in the departmen t store in which she works, to seek a reconciliation, Drew is too deeply hurt to tak e him back , and repulsin g his overture, she tells hi m why. Flipper's desire for a white lover calls into question th e ground s of his love for her, Drew explains . Light-skinned , hersel f th e produc t o f an interracial marriage—her father was white—she recounts how she was made to suffer a s a youth, enduring such epithets a s "yellow bitch," "octoroon," "quadroon." This has sensitized he r to how the black community has internalized white racism's obsession with skin color.15 She accuses Flipper o f having desired her for her light skin and now having gone a step further—into the arms of a real white woman—as a result of hatred for his own dark color. Drew's analysis of Flipper's attractio n to Angie provides the best expla nation fo r th e affai r th e fil m offers . B y his involvemen t wit h a whit e woman, Flipper ha s advance d his project o f integration. Dre w charge s that thi s desir e is fed by black self-hatred: Her husban d rejects the black world he sees both in his parents' home and on the street s of Harlem. To deny his own membership in this community, to rid himself of feelings of inferiority, Flipper repudiate s those whose skin color resembles his own— as if such acts will make him less black. Once FEpper's behavio r is understood a s rooted i n self-hatred, the tra jectory of the narrative becomes clear: The affai r constitute s a step toward

t4f

Jungle Fever

Flipper's ful l embrac e of hi s own identit y a s a black man, something h e has resisted up to now. We have already seen him affir m hi s black identity in on e importan t aspec t of his life: quitting th e white firm for which he has worked to star t hi s own practice. His rejectio n o f Angle will mar k a second crucial step in this process . Other narrative elements in Jungle Fever also mark Flipper's growth to ward self-acceptance , his relationship t o th e blac k underclass being th e most important o f these. This issue is a n immediate one for Flipper be cause Gator is a crackhead. At the outset of the film, Flipper wants nothing to do with his older brother, whom he simply wishes to avoid. At first, albeit reluctantly, he gives him some money with which to buy drugs, but he later refuses t o do even this. It is as if Gator's mere existence belies the Flipper he has chosen to be, as if the shame of having a brother like that is all that Flipper ca n think about when confronted by Gator. Although Gator' s deat h robs Flipper o f the chance to embrace him as a brother, Flipper i s given the opportunit y to mak e such a gesture, if only symbolically. He i s twice accosted b y a child prostitute , evidentl y an ad dict, who offer s t o "suck his dick" for first five dollars an d the n two , the first time as he takes his daughter, Ming (Veronic a Timbers), t o school . Horrified, he thrusts the young prostitute awa y and hurriedly drags Ming across the street, hurting and frightening her. When they reach the othe r side—and ar e thus saf e fro m contamination—h e yells at th e frightene d Ming that he will kill her if he ever catches her using drugs. Flipper panic s because he feel s defile d b y the approac h of thi s pitifu l and desperate young prostitute. Hi s threa t to kill his daughter i f she ever uses drugs—-foreshadowing his own brothers fate—indicates the extrem ity of his nee d to distanc e himsel f from th e underclass . Since this scen e occurs after h e has separated from hi s wife an d daughter, it may also stem from hi s awareness that his own absence may make Ming more vulnerable to the temptation o f drugs.16 In th e film's fina l scene , Flipper, who ha s no w ended hi s affai r wit h Angie and begun th e process o f reconciliation with Drew , again encounters thi s sam e child prostitute . Bu t thi s tim e h e hug s he r t o hi m an d screams th e anguishe d B No!" that end s th e narrative . Flipper's embrace and cr y seal his symboli c identificatio n with th e underclas s and s o measure th e distanc e he ha s travele d towar d self-acceptance , assumin g re sponsibility for his community with all the anguis h this implies. By the end of Jungle Fever, then, Flipper has learned who he is; his story is on e o f growth an d self-discovery . This seemingl y successfu l Africa n

Jungle fever t4

l

American's pursui t of a politics—both public and personal—o f integra tion i s shown t o ste m fro m racia l self-hatred. Thus, Flipper's growing awareness of his need to accept his own blackness requires him to turn toward separatis m in both th e publi c sphere—to found his own practice—and in his personal life—to reject his white lover and return to his family. In presenting the stor y of Flipper's abortiv e affair wit h Angie as an example of the moti f of the forbidde n fruit, Jungle Fever adopts a narrative structure more usual in romances involving cross-class couples. One of the partners—customarily of the inferio r class—has th e ide a that lif e i n th e upper reaches of society is more exciting; ascent is attained b y means of a sexual liaison wit h a social superior ; onc e th e affai r ha s been consum mated, however, the ascending partner discover s that desire for the Other had only been a case of forbidden fruit—seemingl y swee t because prohibited, but sou r onc e tasted ; the sobere d climbe r return s hom e an d th e structure of society is reaffirmed. Instance s o f this plotline ar e legion, recent amon g them suc h films as Someone to Watch Over Me (1987) , Angie (1994), and Crossing De/ancey (1988) . Clearly, the figure of the forbidde n fruit implie s a very different narrative logic fro m th e familia r schem a of "love conquers all" embodied i n a film like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and ridicule d byjung/e Fever. Their choke of narrative Ene is surely due to underlying differences i n the tw o films' understandin g of rac e an d racism . Where Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was predicated o n th e possibilit y o f a color-blind society , Jungle Fevers use of the forbidden fruit narrativ e makes sense precisely because it sees racism as intractable, impossible t o eliminate . In th e climat e of late1960s racia l activism, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner attempted t o vindi cate libera l integrationis m b y showing that whit e American s could ris e even t o th e challeng e o f intermarriage. At th e beginnin g o f the 1990s , Jungle Fever sees such faith as illusory: White America, it says , is and al ways will be racist. The onl y plausible solution fo r the black community is to turn its energies to building institutions it can control. Necessarily, therefore, the tw o films also diffe r i n thei r assessmen t of the possibilitie s of interracial romance , although Jungle Fevers insistenc e that Flippe r doe s no t lov e Angie obscure s the contrast . Fo r Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, nothing shoul d o r could stan d in the wa y of romantic love; Jungle Fever argues that there ar e other, equally compelling, claim s on our commitments. Because neither the black nor the white community is willing to accept Flipper an d Angie into its midst—a point made by an interaction with a waitress in a Harlem restauran t and by a confrontation

144

Jungle Fent

with white policemen—the couple becomes socially isolated. Flipper's rejection o f Angle can be see n as an acknowledgmen t that h e need s more than love, that playing a role in the black community is necessary to confirm his identity. Jungle Fevers forbidden fruit narrativ e illustrates ho w a n abortive affai r can play as important a role i n persona l development a s a successful ro mance. In thi s respect , the film inverts the usual claim of unlikely couple films. Flipper attain s a more adequate sense of himself because the affai r with Angl e does not give him what h e needs—namely , acceptance of his identity as a black man. It does , however, allow him to see what is necessary for him to achiev e such self-acceptance: a more complete identification with hi s community. Thus, unsuccessful affair s ca n foster mora l development b y revealing that what is taken for granted is itself nourishin g and important . Because Jungle Fever treats Flipper' s commitmen t to integratio n a s an expression o f self-hatred, i t i s able to presen t his rejectio n of Angie a s a step in hi s growing acceptance of his own skin color. In s o doing, Jungle Fever assert s tha t there i s a specific way of being blac k fo r a n upper middle-class African America n man, one that involves identification with the entir e Africa n American community and, especially, its mos t op pressed members. Although Flipper' s story may make sense as a psychological portrait , i t cannot be made to serve the purpose the film assigns it, that is , a general analysis of the inadequacy of integration a s a political strategy for African Americans, unless, implausibly, every African American committed t o integration can be shown to suffe r fro m racia l self-hatred. But Jungle Fever's psychologizing o f the politic s o f race i s reductive in an y case, for i t as sumes that the legitimacy of the political agend a it opposes ca n be undermined by providing a psychological accoun t of why individuals are at tracted t o it. An adequat e critique of integration need s to do more tha n develop a psychological analysi s of its adherents. So, despite its interest as a stor y about one man' s confrontation with hi s own internalized racism , Jungle Fever cannot bear the political weight its maker intends.

Angle's Story One o f the mos t pronounced narrativ e features of Jungle Fever is the for mal parallelism it sets up between Flipper's an d Angie's lives. A number of crucial scenes work to emphasize this similarity. For example, after Flippe r

Jungle fever t4

S

tells Cyru s abou t th e affair , Angi e tell s tw o of her girlfriends . Or, afte r Flipper i s thrown out of Ms home by his wife, Angie is thrown out of hers by her father . And afte r thei r affai r ha s ended, the film makes an effort a t symmetric narrative closure, with both returning to the homes from which they had been expelled. The film even presents thei r stake in the relation ship as similar: Both stand to lose ties to family and community. This insistent narrativ e parallelism seems intended to give the impres sion—one that Le e makes explicit in his enunciation of the officia l inter pretation—that Flipper an d Angie engage in their affai r fo r the same reason. Since Flipper say s outright tha t he has been motivated by a curiosity about th e othe r race , the assumptio n is that Angi e to o ha s acte d ou t o f similar motivation . In assessin g this interpretation , w e firs t nee d t o acknowledg e tha t Angie, although no t prejudiced, is not color-blind. Sh e is right to fear tha t her famil y will be shocked t o hear of the affai r an d skin color does play a role in her attractio n t o Flipper. 17 But despite he r awareness of Flipper' s race, this is not the primar y reason for her attraction t o him. Indeed, th e film actually depicts Angie resisting Flipper's attempt to assimilate her experience of the affair t o his. In the scene with which I opened this chapter, Flipper begins his speech: "Angle, I don't think there's anything left to talk about. I giv e up. I don' t lov e you and I doub t i f you ever loved me. " To which Angi e replies, "Don't tell me what I fel t o r didn't feel. " Althoug h this is hardly a full accoun t of her own experience of the relationship, i t is sufficient t o establis h tha t Angles feeling s differe d fro m thos e acknowl edged by Flipper, The suggestio n is, in fact, that she loved Flipper, if only for a time.18 The film's depiction o f Angie is one of its most seriou s flaws. On th e one hand, she is presented as an interesting human being trapped in a suffocating environment , and because of this, the audienc e develops a great deal of sympathy for her. On th e othe r hand , she is not reall y allowed to express he r ow n perspectiv e o n he r relationshi p wit h Flipper . Sh e is treated a s simply a foil fo r Flipper, th e rea l star of the film. It i s as if th e audience's sympathy for Angie must not be allowed to extend too far. One reaso n for this ambivalent attitude lies in the conflict between the director an d the actress who played her about what was motivating Angie. Lee wanted Angle' s story to mirro r Flipper's , but Annabell a Sciorr a ap parently believed that something else moved her character. After the filming, it was generally acknowledged tha t Sciorr a ha d refuse d t o pla y th e role in the way that Lee had demanded, insisting that Angie be allowed to

14$

Jungle Fever

express her perspectiv e more fully. Le e actuall y testified to this fac t i n an interview with Arsenio Hall i n which he admitted tha t h e had quarreled with the actress : "I couldn't put a gun to her head and it was too far along in the shoot to fire her."19 The ambivalenc e manifested towar d Angle is deeper than thi s explanation allows , however, springing fro m th e ver y conception o f the film. In developing its plot, Lee wanted to do two things: First , as we have seen, he wanted t o tell a cautionary tale abou t a black man who has chosen t o define hi s lif e throug h integration . Thus, Jungle Fevers "moralit y tale" 20 has t o en d with a clear messag e to th e effec t tha t black s nee d t o hel p themselves rather than look to white society. This is why the predominant difference i n the couple must be a racial one. But Lee also has said that his first inspiration fo r the film was the inci dent i n whic h Yusu f Hawkins , a young black ma n fro m Harlem , was killed because a group of Italian American youths in Bensonhurst thought that h e wa s dating a woman fro m thei r community . In fact , the film , which begin s by projecting a photograph o f Hawkins o n th e screen , is dedicated t o him . Attention t o thi s stor y abou t th e prejudice s o f the Italian American s i n Bensonhurs t an d thei r fear s o f black sexualit y is therefore important for understanding the film. As Lee put it, Harlem and Bensonhurst fo r me are more than just geographical locations; it's what they represent. Yusuf was killed becaus e they thought h e was the black boyfrien d o f one o f the girl s i n th e neighborhood . What i t comes down to is that white males have problems with black men's sexuality.21

Hence, the film includes many scenes in Paulie's candy store that show the racist attitudes of Bensonhurst*s Italian American men and link these attitudes t o thei r sexua l insecurities . The reaction s of Angle's fathe r t o hi s discovery that she is dating a black man, as well as of Paulie's father when he finds out tha t hi s son is seeing a black woman, emphasize the violen t racism of this community . The Italia n Americans in this film still harbor the crud e racist attitude s tha t man y social theorist s hav e claimed ar e no longer prevalent in American society. But one of the awkward consequences of trying to shed light on the fat e of Yusuf Hawkins is that clas s issues are raised tha t impact on th e racia l story that is supposed to be at the center of Jungle Fever. To make the film relevant t o Hawkins' s tragi c fate , Le e chos e t o hav e Angle com e fro m Bensonhurst. This mean t tha t sh e would hav e t o b e a working-clas s woman. As a result, th e unlikel y coupl e sh e forms wit h Flippe r i s sepa -

Jungle fever 14

?

rated by class as well as racial difference. This means, in turn, that the two characters ma y accord differen t weight s t o eithe r difference . Thus , even though Flippe r see s Angie as primarily a white woman, thereby allowing her working-class statu s less weight i n his relationship with her , Flipper' s class identity may weigh more heavily with Angie than his race.22 And in fact, from he r point of view, the dominant difference i n the couple is class. Although Lee' s concern to tell a story with a particular moral does not allow him t o validate this difference o f perspective, his own aspirations for the film require its expression. If Angle' s primar y significance for Flippe r i s her whiteness , thi s is ironic. A s Gator note s whe n h e meet s her , Flipper' s choic e o f a dark haired, Italian American, working-class woman as the white woman with whom to have an affair i s doing things "the hard way." Johanna Drayton is more the typ e one normally associates with black male desire for a white woman—wealthy, liberal, and blonde. In an y case, to see how Angle's view of Flipper privileges his class identity over his race, we only need as k why Angie i s interested i n having an affair with him in the first place. After all, given the prejudices of the men in he r life , suc h an affai r i s likely to spel l trouble . As with Flipper, ther e must be some strong motivation for pursuing this unlikely affair. And indee d ther e is : Angie i s willing t o break with th e norm s of her community and enter into a sexual relationship with a black man because she is suffocating i n Bensonhurst , her aspiration s stifle d by the limite d horizon o f th e me n o f th e community . With th e exceptio n o f he r boyfriend, Paulie , Jungle Fever portray s th e me n o f that working-clas s Italian American neighborhood a s menacing louts. In a number of scenes in Paulie's candy store, the repartee among the young men who hang out there reveal s them to be ignorant an d racist. These are the sort s o f men, the fil m i s saying, responsible fo r the murde r of Yusuf Hawkins, and it s blunt portrayal is intended to explain how they could come to see him as a threat to their community. But eve n mor e important tha n thes e unattractiv e generalities i s the film's depiction o f Angle's home life. The signa l scene in this regard takes place when Angie come s home fro m he r firs t da y of work a t Mast an d Covington. Her fathe r an d tw o brothers si t o n a couch i n thei r livin g room watchin g a baseball gam e a s the grocery-lade n Angi e open s th e door t o be met by complaints about how late she is and how hungry they are for their dinner. Even so, Angie is left to prepare dinner alone, because her brothers refuse to help, apparently a routine occurrence. There follows

148

Jungle Fever

a cut to her serving the foo d an d her father telling her brothers t o thank their siste r fo r th e meal . Bu t he r younge r brother , Jimmy (Michae l Imperioli), complains tha t h e preferred his mother s cooking, whereupon the whole place erupts in a loud argument , totally disruptin g th e dinner . The scen e closes with Angle's exasperated, "What a fucking life." Angle's is a classic case of the "second-shift" problem, where workingclass women who perfor m a ful l day' s labor outsid e of th e hom e must continue to assume all of the tasks within the home mandated by the tra ditional gendered divisio n of labor.23 The fac t that Angie had an exhausting day, including a long commute to an d from Manhattan, doe s not af fect th e expectation s o f the mal e members of her famil y tha t she , as the sole woman o f the house , i s still responsibl e fo r suc h chores a s cookin g dinner. The contras t betwee n the attractiv e an d vivacious young woman we encounter a t Mast an d Covington an d the put-upon drudge sh e becomes when she returns home to Bensonhurst lets us see that Angie is in a trap from whic h she does not know how to escape, This sens e o f Angle's lif e a s a dead en d i s exacerbate d whe n Pauli e comes to pick her up for the evening. Angle's brothers goad him, warning that h e better no t be "fuckin g thei r sister " (see Photo 7.2). I n th e nex t scene, Angi e tell s hi m tha t sh e i s upset h e doe s no t stan d u p t o he r brothers, but just takes their abuse. Paulie's passivity, although i t marks a way of surviving as a sensitive hu man bein g in this appallingly restrictiv e social environment, and is more appealing to Angie than the imbecilic machismo of her two brothers, ultimately disqualifies him a s a romantic partner. Paulie is himself dominated by his father an d seem s unable to take control o f his life by, for example, setting limits to the demand s his father make s on him or even by asking Angie to marry him. Jungle Fever attempts t o portray the me n of Bensonhurst in a way that makes i t understandabl e ho w the y coul d hav e killed a young Africa n American simpl y because they suspecte d tha t h e was the love r of one of their woman. In th e process , th e film necessarily depicts th e hars h con straints such attitudes impose on the lives of the women of that community. As a result, Angie engage s our sympathies because she emerges as a true victim of sexism and racism. Against thi s backdrop , i t i s not surprisin g tha t Angi e find s hersel f willing t o hav e an affai r wit h Flipper , fo r h e represent s a way of being assertively mal e tha t avoid s bot h th e violence-tinge d working-clas s masculinity of Angle's brothers an d also Paulie's passivity. Flipper's refine-

Jungle fever

149

Pbto 7,2 Angle's brothers bssl* tke fass'm Paulie

ment, superior to that of the men with whom Angie lives in Bensonhurst, is due i n larg e measur e to hi s class status. This mean s that Angi e views him a s a man mor e fro m anothe r clas s than o f a different race . In fact , Flipper's clas s locatio n link s hi m t o a world tha t ha s been close d of f to her. Although ther e may be some racial aspects to the world that he opens for her, it s primary aspect is class. To put it epigrammatically, whereas Lee seems to think of Flipper a s representing Harlern to Angie s Bensonhurst, to he r h e actuall y represent s Manhatta n an d al l that i s contained there . He provide s he r with acces s not s o much to black sexuality as to upper class masculinity. And thi s seem s to promise her a means of escape fro m the slo w death sh e had bee n livin g in Bensonhurst . The sexua l curiosit y Flipper (and through him , Spike Lee) attributes t o Angie plays some role in her attraction t o him, but it is not its most important factor , and it does not, i n an y case, explain th e exten t o f her interes t i n him . Instead , th e overwhelming reaso n fo r Angie's interes t i s that h e represent s desire d possibilities. Flipper' s way of being a man and the life that he leads, rather than his race, are what attract her to him. This is why the attemp t t o see Angie a s simply a victim of jungle feve r is so problematic. In Angie, the film has drawn a rich portrait o f a young woman who wants more for herself than her education, gender , and class

ISO

Jungle Fever

allow her to have. Her affai r with Flipper holds the promise of an enlargement of her life . Lee' s allegianc e to a racialized understanding of Angie, however, causes him to treat her in a manner inconsistent wit h that rich portrait. When, afte r her affai r wit h Flippe r has ended, Angie return s home t o Bensonhurst , with he r tail betwee n he r legs and with no t even the prospect o f resuming her relationship with Paulie, she is not actin g as the film has led us to believe she would. Ruled by his desire fo r a forma l parallelism consisten t wit h hi s simple moral message, Lee will not allo w Angie t o mov e in direction s h e ha s opened u p fo r her . There seem s no reason fo r he r t o slin k home , especiall y sinc e it i s clear tha t whateve r awaits her there will be unpleasant at best. In th e term s it has set out for her, the fil m coul d hav e allowed he r t o accep t the en d o f the affair , bu t given he r th e psychi c resource s t o forg e a life beyon d th e narro w con straints o f Bensonhurst. As Angie return s home, we have no sens e that anything will come of her affai r bu t th e destruction o f her life's possibili ties. Although Flippe r has endured pain, that pai n has some meaning; in Angle's case, not only has she suffered a t Flipper's hands, but the film itself dismisses her suffering, for she is not allowed to have gained anything as a result of her efforts .

Conclusion Given th e patho s of Angle's life , Spik e Lee's refusa l t o acknowledg e this aspect of the film is a striking indication that the significanc e of her relationship with Flippe r exceed s th e understandin g tha t th e film's director permits himself. For him , his fil m i s a morality tale, a didactic exercise aimed primarily at upper-middle-class African America n males . The les son they are supposed to take away from a viewing of this film is that their desire fo r relationship s wit h whit e wome n ma y be fe d b y racia l self hatred. This aspect of the film represents Lee's attempt to counter Guess Who's Coming to Dinners messag e that integration i s a viable strategy for over coming the racis m of American society. The fat e o f Jungle Fever's unlikely couple is intended t o show the futility of that strategy. To convey that message , Lee not onl y treats race as the dominan t dif ference i n the Flipper-Angi e couple, he claims that i t i s the onl y differ ence tha t counts . A s we hav e seen , however, this stor y ha s another dy namic, one fueled by class and gender differences rathe r than simply racial ones. Although th e film refuses t o full y develo p thi s story, enough of it is

Jungle fever 15

1

present for us to se e it a s a separate narrative strand undermined only by the film's ending. If there is a real tragedy in/of this film, it is Angie's failure to realize a better life for herself. In a way, the most interesting thing about Jungle Fever is the fac t that it combines these two narratives in a single story. Unfortunately, Spike Lee's desire to convey a simple political line results in a failure to give both narratives thei r fulles t development . Nonetheless, we can se e that the y are both present in the film and account for a good deal of our interest in it . Even i n ou r mos t intimate relationships, we do no t alway s fully under stand how other human beings experience their world because they bring to that experience frames o f reference derived from membershi p in social groups other than ones to which we belong. Although Angi e and Flipper come togethe r fo r a while, they do s o for very different reasons . Ha d Jungle Fever been willing to acknowledge the complexity of its own story, it would have been an even more interesting and compelling film.

Notes 1. All quotation s fro m Jungle Fever ar e fro m m y transcription o f th e film' s sound track. 2. Jack Kroll, Vern E. Smith, and Andrew Murr, "Spiking a Fever," Newsweek, June 10,1991, p. 46. This issue of Newsweek featured a picture of Spike Lee on the cover. 3. Kroll et al., "Spiking a Fever," p, 45. 4. That Jungle Fever ha s a n importan t relationship to Guess Who's Corning fa Dinner can be seen, for example, from th e fac t tha t Kroll et al. begin "Spiking a Fever** with a discussion of Guess Wbo'$ Coming to Dinner. 5. Lee, quoted in Kroll et al., "Spiking a Fever," p. 46, 6. Malcolm X , By Any Means Necessary (Ne w York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), p. 9, 7. The African Americans shown in this film are either affluent—like Flipper' s family and their friends—or member s of the underclass—like his brother, Gator. The fil m thu s reflects a growing polarization o f the Africa n American commu nity into these two classes. For a general discussion of the significanc e of this, see William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 8. Kenneth B. Clark, "Contemporary Sophisticated Racism, " in The Declining Significance of Race"? A Dialogue Among Black and White Social Scientists, Joseph R . Washington Jr., ed. (Philadelphia: n.p., 1979), pp. 100-101. 9. Gunnar Myrdal , An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1944), p. Ixxi.

ISt

Jungle Fever

10. Booker T. Washington, The Future of the American Negro (Boston : Small , Maynard and Company, 1899), p. 233. 11. E. U. Essien-Udom, Black Nationalism: A Search for an Identity in America (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 37. 12. Malcolm X, By Any Means, p. 9. 13. Elijah Muhammad, Herald-Dispatch (Lo s Angeles), Novembe r 21, 1959 , pp. 3 and 10. Quoted i n Essien-Udom, Black Nationalism, pp. 164-165. 14. The quotation is from 1 Corinthians 7:2. 15. Spike Lee' s secon d featur e film , School Daze (1988) , a musica l set i n a Southern black college, satirizes this very obsession . 16. Here, Lee i s mobilizing the clai m that absen t black father s ar e a serious problem with ghetto life. Two of his recent films—Get on the Bus (1997) and He Got Game (1998)—develop this theme further . 17. The fil m contain s two scenes that explicitly call attention t o this aspect of her desire. The first one occurs during one of the intimate take-out dinner s that the tw o of them have after wor k as a prelude to their affair . When Flippe r con fronts Angi e by claiming that she was fascinated b y his dark skin, she denies it, but the n admits that she was looking at it. In the second one, as the two of them stroll through a n amusement park, she asks him whether it is true that black men do not like to "go down" on women. Both times, the film clearly calls attention to the presence of a sexual mythology as playing a role in Angle's view of Flipper. 18. One o f the fe w reviewers of the film to notice this point i s Bert Cardullo. See his "Law of the Jungle," Hudson Review, 44 (1991-1992): pp. 639-647. 19. Quoted i n Bria n D. Johnson, "Sex at th e Colo r Bar : Spike Lee Dissect s Inter-racial Romance," Macleans, June 17,1991, p. 55. 20.1 take th e ter m "moralit y tale" from Dougla s Kellner' s analysi s of Lee' s films. See his "Spike Lee' s Moralit y Tales," i n Philosophy and Film, Cynthia A . Freeland an d Thomas E . Wartenberg, eds.(New York an d London: Routledge , 1995), pp. 201-217. 21. Kroll et al., "Spiking a Fever," p. 45. 22. It ma y be that Angle's being from th e working class is an important factor in Flipper's deciding to pursue her. The film does not really provide evidence for or against this. 23. For a discussion of this problem, see Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home (New York: Viking, 1989).

8 Mississifpi M$$$Ia love i n a P o s t c o l o n i a I Worl d

Set i n Greenwood , Mississippi , i n th e summe r of 1990 , Mir a Nair' s Mississippi Masa/a (1991 ) tell s th e stor y o f the romanc e between Min a (Sarita Choudhury) , a youn g India n immigran t fro m Uganda , an d Demetrius (Denze l Washington) , a n Africa n America n an d nativ e Mississippian. Because Mina's family was expelled from Uganda, exiled by Idi Amin, as were all Ugandans of Asian descent, her father, Jay (Roshan Seth), who wishes in an y case for his daughter to marr y within their im migrant enclave , adamantl y oppose s he r liaiso n wit h a blac k man . Although th e film' s narrativ e center s o n Mina' s relationshi p wit h Demetrius, Jay's continuing obsession with thei r expulsio n i s an impor tant ancillar y theme—as th e film's wrenching sequenc e depicting th e family's departure from Ugand a indicates. Mississippi Masa/as affirmatio n o f a woman's righ t t o choos e he r ow n romantic partner rather than submit to the wishes of her parents links this film to th e traditio n vindicatin g romanti c love—traceable a t least a s far back a s Romeo and Juliet—that w e saw animate the critiqu e of racism in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Indeed, because the India n communit y in Greenwood support s th e traditiona l practic e o f arrange d marriage , th e world portrayed in Mississippi Masa/a i s actually closer in spirit to that of Romeo and Juliet than is the world of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, But emphasizing the concerns that Mississippi Masa/a share s with Guess Who's Coming to Dinner threatens t o underpla y its fa r more sophisticate d politics a s well as its novel use of the narrativ e figure of transgressive love 153

IS 4

Hississiffi

Mtstla

to ground a more general investigation into problems of identity formation i n postcolonial settings: How, in such settings, to resolve competing demands for loyalty from both the colonizing an d the colonized cultures? In immigran t communitie s suc h as the on e portrayed i n th e film , thi s quest for identity requires individuals to adjudicate between the claims of inherited nationalit y or ethnicit y an d those o f the ne w homeland. Th e postcolonial mus t decide whether an d how to maintai n a sense of ethnic or national filiation in a society that asks, in more or less extreme fashion , for conformity to its practices. In focusin g o n Mina' s attemp t t o forg e a romanti c liaiso n wit h Demetrius, Mississippi Masala bring s a feminist perspective to it s depiction o f the struggle s facin g thi s postcolonial, immigran t woman . Mina' s quiet protofeminism suggest s that the attempt to (re)constitute an Indian identity through fidelity to the traditional practice of arranged marriage— which, in the film, functions a s a metonym for the more global attempt t o maintain/create a "pure" Indian identity in exile—is a denial of the com plex an d conflictua l characte r o f her experience . The fil m insist s tha t a n authentically postcolonia l identit y canno t b e derive d fro m withi n th e now-diminished horizon s o f traditional practice , ethni c o r national , but requires tha t burstin g o f obsolete boundarie s symbolize d b y the Mina Demetrius couple. Because the story of Mina's unlikely romance and the story of Jay's nostalgia an d rag e ar e intercut , man y critics hav e castigate d Mississippi Masala fo r lack of unity. 1 But a careful unpackin g of the film' s representational an d narrativ e strategies reveal s that, on th e contrary , its argumen t proceeds through the development of a parallel between the predicaments of Indians in Uganda and in the United States : In both countries , Indian exclusivism ha s manifeste d itself in antiblac k racis t practices. The fil m urges Indian immigrants to reject these, despite the material benefits they confer, to find a way to live in solidarity with other postcolonial people s of color.2 In deployin g th e figure of the unlikel y couple t o interrogat e at tempts t o develo p a pure postcolonial ethni c identity , Mississippi Masala expands the possibilities of the genre as a vehicle for social criticism . Before proceeding further , there i s a terminological proble m that needs to be acknowledged. I characterize the species of identity the Indian community wishes to (re)creat e in Greenwood a s ethnic. There are two problems with this usage: First, that it may not accord with the self-ascription of the Indians in the film, who may think of themselves instead as (re)creating a national identity;3 and second, that the film presents this mode of

Mississifpi Masala

1S5

identity formation as parallel to that of African Americans , a designation that is at least ambiguously racial,4 Despite my awareness of its inadequacies, the term "ethnicity" seems preferable to its alternatives—"nationality" or "race"—which pose even deeper problems in attempting to describe the issues raised by the film. The Politie s o f Postcolonia l Lif e Mina's struggle to construct a postcolonial identity in the fac e o f opposi tion fro m he r famil y an d fro m th e large r immigrant community raises a momentous question : In th e aftermat h of colonialism, is it desirabl e or even possible fo r postcolonia l people s t o maintain/recove r a pure ethni c identity?5 Among the options the film dramatizes, affirming one' s ethnic identity by submitting to a set of practices designed to (re)create authentic prelapsarian culture is quite explicitly rejected. And the film does this by satirizing the attempt s of Greenwood's Indian immigrants to perpetuate traditional India n practices , most notabl y that o f arranged marriage , and by exposing the racism consequent upon those attempts. Indeed, it is this aspect o f Mississippi Masala tha t ha s cause d reviewers and fil m an d socia l theorists alike to rebuke it for ethnic stereotyping. 6 These criticism s prompt th e questions : What make s a representation stereotypical? And wh y is this mod e o f representation problematic ? As Homi Bhabha has argued, a social stereotype is not simply a negative image of a group: The stereotyp e is not a simplification because it is a false representation o f a given reality ... [but ] becaus e it is an arrested, fixated form o f representation that , in denying th e pla y of difference (tha t th e negatio n throug h th e Other permits), constitutes a problem for the representation o f the subjec t in significations of psychic and social relations.7

In s o far as I understand Bhabha's point, it is that stereotyping involves a simplification o f a more complex, heterogeneous reality, one that involves multiple, shifting identities. In th e cas e of the postcolonial , a stereotype would no t acknowledg e competin g demand s on allegiance , but woul d treat on e claim—such a s the desir e to restore a pure ethnic identity—as exclusive and obligatory. Now, ther e is a sense in which Mississippi Masala doe s traffic i n stereotypes. Its portrayal of the immigrant Indian community in Greenwood is

156 Hississiffi

Mastts

undoubtedly harsh and satiric. What its critics fai l to recognize, however, is how this representational strategy serves the film's more comprehensive political critiqu e o f the postcolonia l fantas y o f a pure ethnicity. The fil m recognizes—indeed, it emphasizes—th e difficultie s facin g postcolonia l immigrants, but i t knowingl y ridicule s thi s desir e fo r ethnic purit y as hopelessly ou t o f touc h wit h th e realitie s o f thei r children' s lives . Postcolonial identitie s ar e inherently mixe d or hybri d an d th e fil m por trays these children a s sufficiently Westernized tha t the attempt to impose archaic, ethnically inflected practices suc h as arranged marriage can only lead to deep discontent and/o r revolt. It is precisely to convey the unsatisfactory nature of this solution t o the problem of postcolonial identit y tha t the film resorts to caricature and stereotype . The ke y metaphor th e film proposes for understanding the situation of postcolonials is that o f a masala, the pungen t mi x of spices ubiquitous in Indian cuisine. The Mississipp i masala of the film's title is, in the first instance, Mina, for she is ethnically Indian, was born and spent her early life in Uganda, but is now American both i n domicile and cultural allegiance. Indeed, at a crucial point in her relationship with Demetrius, Mina refer s to herself as a masala, explaining to her puzzled partne r that th e blend of Indian, Ugandan, an d American influence s o n he r mak e her just suc h a spicy mixture. In the second instance, Greenwood's congeries of races, nationalities, and ethnicities make it a masala. From the film's point of view, the Indian s livin g ther e den y thi s fact , segregatin g themselve s fro m American cultur e an d (re)creatin g thei r Indiannes s through traditiona l observance. Mississippi Masala thu s insists on th e inescapabl y hybrid character o f postcolonial immigrant experience. As a result, the film's use of stereotype does not automatically count as a defect, as its detractors assume , nor does it signal unconscious acceptance of a colonialist "discourse of the Other, " but serves instead to debunk the colonized's counterdiscourse of an undefiled, recoverable origin.8 This perspective also allows us to se e what i s misplaced i n bel l hook s and Anuradha Dingwaney's complaint that the film adopts the colonizers ' discourse, that is, that it fail s t o represent the viewpoints o f postcolonial s themselves.9 Although critica l o f almost ever y aspect o f the film , hook s and Dingwaney's deepest objection to Mississippi Masa/a i s that its use of the romanti c narrativ e renders i t incapabl e of making a political state ment, celebrating, instead, romantic love and the home . Such criticis m fail s t o recogniz e ho w it s stor y o f unlikely romance serves th e film's complex political argument . That the fil m doe s hav e

Mississifpi Masala

!S7

larger ambitions is recognized by E. Ann Kapla n in an essay that attempts to locate the film within a feminist filmmaking practice: Nair, then, is not simpl y writing a narrative about individuals who manage to find their personal happiness. She intends to indicate, to reference, larger perspectives regardin g Third World nations , links between African s an d African Americans , decolonizatio n i n Afric a an d post-colonialis m i n America ... 1 0

Although sh e does not spell out the politics of the film, Kaplan does see that its love story is highly symbolic, for the romance between Mina and Demetrius tells us as much about the politics of postcolonialism as it does about them as individuals. Further potential fo r critical discomfort with Mississippi Masala ma y lie with its harsh treatment of Indian immigrants—especiall y if one were to assume that the film is, or ought to be, striving for an even-handed depiction of Greenwood's Indian and African American communities. But this objection woul d ignore the film's focus o n what it see s as problematic in Indian America n traditionalism. The option s tha t th e film makes available to these immigrants are so portrayed as to support the film's condemnation o f lif e choice s that would evad e the commonalitie s amon g postcolonial peoples . I n maintainin g thei r nationa l traditions , Indian s segregate themselves from othe r peoples o f color, supporting, at best im plicitly, th e racis m o f America n society . B y contrast , th e Africa n American communit y acknowledges, with seriousnes s rather than cyni cism, that in a white-dominated society , all postcolonials are in the same boat.11 The film' s preferenc e for the alternativ e o f solidarity i s thus clear. In many ways, this optio n ma y seem to involv e assimilation, a rejection of traditional customs and practices in favo r o f those of the ne w homeland. And o f course, assimilation i s one path traditionall y open to immigrants seeking a better life . But on e of the unique features o f Mississippi Masala is that it operates within a n understanding of the restricted choice s available to postcolonial Americans, be they descendants of enslaved Africans or Indian s recentl yJ arrive d fro m Afric a o r Asia . The racis m of whit e Southern culture presents barriers to assimilation for either group. For the Indians, the film argues, there is an alternative to the creation of a stultifying, inward-turning, and defensive culture: acknowledgment that all postcolonial peoples—in the film's terms, all people of color—are in the sam e boat. Creating a n identity based o n thi s awarenes s allows for more flexible attitudes towar d bot h th e ne w homeland an d other postcolonials .

158

Hississiffi Mastts

Although th e " f word" is not spoke n once during the film, it is clear that this film reflects th e feminis t concerns of its female director. For example, Demetrius's respectfu l attitud e towar d Min a help s mak e her pursui t o f solidarity with African Americans a means for realizing larger possibilities for herself. Once w e understan d th e option s availabl e t o Min a i n th e Unite d States, we can better understand her father's anger over his expulsion fro m Uganda. Jay is one of a group of Indians who benefited from thei r role in the administratio n of British colonialism . Although hi s fathe r wa s a laborer brought t o East Africa by the British to help build the railroad, Jay became a highl y respecte d an d powerfu l lawyer. Not surprisingly , he thought o f himself as a Ugandan first—fully assimilated—and an Indian second. Hence, exile is truly traumatic for him. Jay did not thin k of himself as an Indian, distinguished fro m hi s fellow Ugandans by virtue of this ethnicity. But the film reveals, if only gradually and mostl y indirectly, through its examination of the India n community in Greenwood, that Jay was simply wrong about this. In a flashback rather late in the film, the infamou s dictator Id i Amin i s shown on a television screen explaining why he has decreed tha t al l Asians must leave Uganda. They hav e become ric h whil e impoverishin g the Africans , h e charges . And despite the benefits Uganda has bestowed on them, they ungratefully cultivate a sense of their superiority . In evidence, he cites, in a remark the inclusion of which seems to signal the film's agenda, the Indians' "refus[al ] to allow their daughters to marry Africans."12 By including thi s quasi-documentar y element, Mississippi Masala no t only indicates a certain sympathy with Amin's criticism of the Indians' exploitative role as well as with his condemnation of their hostility to exogamous marriage, but i t als o explains the significanc e of the film's focus o n the romanc e betwee n a n India n exil e fro m Ugand a an d a n Africa n American fro m Greenwood . In explorin g what Mina find s i n he r rela tionship t o Demetrius an d her father's oppositio n t o it, the film intends a symbolic investigatio n o f the histor y of Indian participatio n i n Wester n colonialism. In Idi Amin's justification of his policy of expulsion, the film finds historica l warran t fo r it s emphasi s on th e issu e of intermarriage , even as it remains critical of any search for a pure ethnic identity. Thus, Mississippi Masa/a's doubl e narrative is not th e defec t that critics take i t for , but a sign o f the scop e o f its ambitions . The tw o narrative strands are mutually reinforcing: Perspectives developed i n one shed ligh t on concern s raised in th e other . At th e hear t o f both i s the questio n of

Mississifpi Masala

IS9

how postcolonials can construct identitie s that exempt the m fro m com plicity with colonialism itself. The Failur e » f Ethnicit y The option s availabl e t o Greenwood' s India n immigrant s ar e vividly counterpointed through depictions of the traditional India n marriage that opens the American section of the film on the one hand and the passion ate romance that develop s betwee n Min a an d Demetrius o n th e other . The marriag e sequenc e take s plac e i n Augus t 1990 , i n Greenwood , Mississippi, wher e Jay and hi s famil y ar e settled afte r exil e fro m Ugand a and a stay of unspecified length in London. Their now-straitened circum stances contrast sharpl y with the opulence o f their lif e i n Uganda, where they live d i n a beautiful house with breathtakin g views , which th e film represents, to the accompanimen t of lush music, as a bucolic idyll. There Jay was an influentia l lawyer, a leader o f the India n community , whose views were sought by the foreign media. In Greenwood , they occupy two seedy room s a t th e Mont e Crist o Motel , whos e owner , Ani l (Ranji t Chowdhry), is a member of their extende d family . While Jay spends hi s time obsessivel y pursuing hi s clai m agains t the governmen t o f Uganda, his wife, Kinnu (Sharmila Tagore), support s th e famil y b y runnin g a Equor shop . Mina hersel f works a s a cleaning woman at th e motel , presumably out of economic necessity rather than personal preference. The Greenwoo d sectio n of the film opens as preparations are under way for Anil' s marriag e to Chanda (Dipti Suthar). Their wedding furnishes a number o f pretexts^mos t centrally , o f course , aroun d th e issu e o f arranged marriag e itself—for contrastin g Mina' s self-understanding wit h that of the other Indian immigrants. As in Romeo and Juliet, th e question is whether parenta l o r romanti c preference should determin e one' s life' s partner. Mississippi Masala employ s a number of distinct narrativ e devices to mak e its cas e for romanti c love . Fo r example , as in othe r storie s o f transgressive relationships , th e relativ e allur e of the tw o male contenders is used to signify the relative validity of opposing principle s of partner selection. Thus, Harry Pate l (Asho k Lath ) play s Demetrius*s less winning foil, much as, in Romeo and Juliet, Paris does Romeo's. Harry, the favorite of Mina's parents , is a successful membe r o f the immigran t community, the "goo d catch " so familiar t o suc h dramas. Demetrius, o f course, is the more attractiv e man , less uptight tha n humorless , self-important Harry , and someone with whom Mina connects much more directly.

160

Hississiffi Mastts

Photo 8. 1 An arranged marriage

A secon d o f these narrativ e devices is the film's satirizing o f arranged marriage. Horny Anil twice tries to make love to his new wife, but each attempt ends in failure (se e Photo 8.1). The first time, Chanda inadvertently slaps Anil in the face ; the second , already indifferent t o his clumsy humping, she actually throws him off , complaining that he is hurting her. When Anil turns to the TV fo r solace, we see an ad that promises financial success, implying that his thwarted sexuality will only intensify his acquisitiveness. The film's satirical treatment of this assertion of Indian cultural practice in America treats Anil and Chanda's arranged marriage as a symbol of all that is wrongheaded in the turn toward a recovered traditionalism.13 If it s ironi c tak e o n arrange d marriag e i s on e targe t o f Mississippi Masalds critiqu e of Greenwood's India n immigrant community, a second is its racism. India has its own light-skin/dark-skin fixation and Indians in America readil y superimpose it on the U.S . racial hierarchy. This issue is raised during the wedding sequence when Kinnu reminds Mina that finding her a suitable husband has not been easy . In response , Mina tell s he r mother t o accep t th e fac t tha t sh e ha s a "darkie daughter," no t a goo d catch by Indian standards.

Mississifpi Masala 16

1

This interestin g an d excitin g youn g woman's wry evaluation o f he r marriageability is reinforced by two gossip s (on e o f whom i s played by Mira Nair , the films director), who conclude that her chances of winding up with Harr y Pate l are slim: "You can be poor o r you can be dark. But you can't be both poo r an d dark. " If thes e busybodies are taken as representative o f Indian attitude s generally , then difference s i n ski n color and wealth woul d see m t o b e the onl y things tha t coun t when determinin g matrimonial suitability. Mina depart s th e wedding with Hairy, however , perhaps an indicatio n that he r mother' s fondes t wish ma y yet be fulfilled . Ironically , it instead results i n th e initiatio n o f her relationshi p wit h Demetrius . Harr y take s Mina to the Leopar d Lounge , a disco at which the patrons ar e predominantly African American. After Demetriu s ask s Mina t o danc e an d she accepts, a clearly annoyed Harr y announce s hi s intentio n t o leav e th e club; later, Demetrius will drive her home. Mina i s clearly more at ease at the disc o than at the wedding. Thus, as soon a s she enters th e club , she has a friendly exchange with a n African American woman. Significantly, we have been shown n o similar encounters with Indians . Perhaps, the Africa n American community will allow Mina t o be appreciated a s an individual, rather than be condescended t o for he r dark skin color and her family's poverty. Mina's desire to escape from th e context of Indian immigrant life is presented by the film, then, as a refusal t o accept these damaging measures of her worth and the limitations they imply. Instead, she insists on a relationship with a man of her choice, one who finds her attractive and interesting. And i t is Greenwood's African America n community, not he r own Indian enclave, that offers he r the chance to enlarge her sense of herself.

Two Communities, Two Responses The difference s tha t divide Mississippi Masalas unlikel y couple provoke different response s i n th e India n an d Africa n American communities , and, i n this film's judgment, to the discredit of the former . Mina's i s a bourgeois family , eve n though expulsion an d dispossessio n have impoverishe d it . Fro m he r family' s point o f view, its curren t eco nomic difficult y i s not a n accurat e indicator o f Mina's socia l status . Th e family experience s itsel f throug h it s ow n history, a perception expresse d by Jay's oft-stated desir e that she pursue her education. He will have failed as a father, he tells her, if she does no more with her life than clean toilets.

142

Hississiffi Mtstla

Demetrius come s fro m a poor, bu t hardworking , African America n family. Hi s elderl y father , Williben (Jo e Seneca) , works as a waiter in a restaurant. (Mrs. Morgan [Kare n Pinkston], Willibens employer, is one of the few white characters who appear in the film. Her demeanin g attitude toward Willibe n implie s th e ever-presen t contex t o f white racis m in which thi s stor y unfolds.) 14 Fro m Demetrius' s Aun t Ros e (Yvett e Hawkins), who seems keen that Mina hook up with Demetrius, we learn that he gave up a scholarship to Jackson State to care for his widowed fa ther. Having chosen t o remain in Greenwood, Demetriu s ha s started hi s own carpet cleaning company, servicing many of the motels owned by the Indians i n Mina's extende d group , including th e on e i n which sh e lives and works. Demetrius i s represented a s hardworking and morall y responsible, th e sort o f black man celebrate d i n black nationalist discourse , and th e film underscores his exceptional character by playing up the contrast between him an d the othe r young black men portrayed in the film. First, there is Dexter (Tic o Wells), Demetrius' s younger brother, who m the ambitiou s Demetrius repeatedl y upbraid s fo r hi s shiftlessness . Tyron e (Charle s S . Dutton), Demetrius's busines s partner, although equall y committed t o their undertaking , serve s t o emphasiz e anothe r importan t aspec t o f Demetrius's character: his respect for women. Tyrone fits the stereotype of the sexuall y predacious black male, eager t o be d Min a fro m th e minut e that he meets her. Somewhat improbably, Demetrius seem s hardly to notice her beauty, a narrative ploy designed to demonstrate that he is not obsessed with sex. 15 How, then , ar e we to characteriz e th e difference s dividin g Mina and Demetrius? O n th e one hand, they both ar e struggling economicall y and they even do the sam e sort of work, for both ar e cleaners. On th e othe r hand, there is the difference that Mina's situation is the result of her being declassed i n consequenc e of her family' s expulsio n from Uganda . In thi s context, the similarity in economic status represents a problem, for Jay refuses t o accept his reduced lower-class position a s really his, and the law suit represents his attempt to return his family to their prior and, from hi s point of view, deserved place. The differenc e tha t keep s the two characters apart is that Demetrius is African American , and Mina, Indian. Mississippi Masa/as presentatio n o f why this differenc e make s a difference i s unique amon g unlikely couple films in that it does not treat the attitudes of the partners' communities of origin a s parallel. In bot h Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Jungle Fever,

Mississifpi Masala

163

the familie s o f the unlikel y partners ar e equally opposed t o th e couple . Mississippi Masala show s that although ethnic difference ca n be an obstacle for its unlikely couple, it need not be. For the Africa n American s who are Demetrius's famil y an d friends , Min a i s simpl y anothe r perso n o f color. As a result, not only is there no opposition t o her relationship wit h him at all, there is even general support for their forming a couple, Mina's dark skin establishes their kinship as people o f color oppressed by whites. This is mad e clear whe n Demetriu s invite s Min a t o a barbecue cele brating Williben's birthda y t o mak e his forme r partner , Alici a LeSha y (Natalie Oliver) , jealous. 16 Aske d t o explai n wh y there ar e Indians i n Africa, Min a respond s tha t the y wer e brought ther e b y the Britis h t o build the railroads. This prompts Tyrone and Dexter t o draw the analog y between th e presenc e o f th e Indian s i n Afric a an d th e presenc e o f Africans i n America : Both group s wer e uprooted b y imperialist power s and transported b y sea to perform force d labor . Coming fro m Africa , th e ancestral hom e o f black Americans, even gives Min a a certain cache t among Demetrius's friend s an d family, for, of course, they have never been to their lands of origin. This scene demonstrates ho w the complex histories of two postcolonia l peoples allow s them t o discove r tha t thei r difference s ca n be somethin g other than absolute barriers. Indeed, the criss-crossing identitie s acknowl edged b y the character s in this scen e emblematize the potentia l fo r soli darity between these groups. On th e othe r hand , Mina's famil y an d friends respon d t o thei r liaiso n with hostility , fo r to the m Demetriu s i s clearly an inappropriate partne r for her. The reason s for this ar e various. First, there i s the fundamental fact tha t Demetrius i s not a n Indian, an d a s we have seen, Mina's famil y copes with exile by ghettoizing itself. Clinging defensively to their identi fication as Indians, Mina's relatives insist that Mina do the same. And thi s self-evidently entails that only another Indian immigrant would make her a suitable husband. The fac t tha t Demetriu s i s Africa n America n an d poo r reinforce s Indian opposition t o his relationship with Mina . Jay is a snob who looks down o n menia l labor, an d hi s ignoranc e o f th e situatio n o f blacks in America—shared b y the immigran t communit y i n general—cause s hi m to severel y underestimat e Demetrius . Rathe r tha n appreciat e tha t Demetrius's ownershi p o f his ow n fir m i s an indicatio n o f his ambition , Jay sees only the menia l nature of the work he does. The audienc e knows this young man's aspirations to a college educatio n wer e thwarted b y his

144 Hississiffi

Mastts

sense of responsibility to his family—hence hi s profession is really a symbol of his moral virtue—but Jay dismisses him a s unworthy to be his sonin-law. Because, as we have seen, India ha s suffered fro m it s own fixation with skin tone, the film suggests that Greenwood's Indian immigrants are susceptible t o American race thinking. As a result, black Americans seem to them inherently inferior to Indians, and so on grounds of race, Demetrius is automatically excluded as a partner for Mina. A final reason for the Indians * opposition t o the coupl e has to do with the cours e tha t th e relationshi p takes . When th e fac t tha t Min a an d Demetrius ar e sleeping togethe r become s a public scandal , her famil y takes steps to separate them. Although thi s affair ha s followed th e more or-less typica l pattern fo r Americans, to th e traditiona l Indians , Mina' s sexual activity has brought shame on herself and her family . How differen t Mina' s attitude is from tha t of her parents is emphasized in a scene that comes shortly after her affai r with Demetrius has been discovered and made public. When Mina announces her love for Demetrius, her parents respon d i n ways tha t reflect thei r determinatio n t o maintain their India n way of life. Thus, Mina's mother objects, "You call this love, when all you've done is bring down such shame on our heads." Kinnu's reproach—that her daughter's feeling s fo r Demetrius coul d no t be love because th e relationshi p violate s India n norm s governin g courtship — suggests that her mother has a very different understandin g of what love means. Fo r Mina , whos e conceptio n o f lov e i s th e on e prevalen t i n American society, love is what she feels for Demetrius no matter what society has to say about it.17 The differenc e i n their attitude s i s underscored when Kinnu questions her abou t ho w Demetrius's famil y feels . "This i s America, Mom," Min a says, "nobody cares. " To Mina , her mothe r is simply living in th e past , holding o n t o cultura l values irrelevant i n th e America n context . He r mother's response—"W e care, your fathe r an d I . I f we don't care , who will?"—indicates just how different a n understanding of the rol e of family she has from th e one Mina has absorbed in her adopted country. This exchange neatly encapsulates the dilemma that immigrants of any origin fac e i n their new homeland. Themselves product s of different cul tural traditions , the y want thei r childre n t o maintai n the practice s the y value and accept. But their children ar e necessarily more attuned to thei r surroundings and so their ancestors' cultural patterns are no longer attractive and compelling. These children lon g to be full y a part of the culture

Mississifpi Masala U

S

their parents view warily. Through it s enumeration of the dilemmas facing Greenwood's Indian immigrants, Mississippi Masala thus conveys the fundamental challenge of the postcolonial situation: to construct a meaningful identit y tha t reject s the spuriou s allure of a pure native culture, undefiled by colonial penetration , Romance in S o l i d a r i t y The contras t betwee n Anil's loveless marriag e to Chand a an d Mina's ro mantically inspired relationship with Demetrius emerges very clearly in the scene in which the latter make love in a Biloxi motel. The camer a seems to luxuriate on their intertwined bodies as they enact their passion for one another (see Photo 8.2). This is an pivotal episode, for at the same time that it marks the lovers' commitment t o one another, it also results in their exposure and the scandal that seems to portend an end to their relationship . For Mississippi Masala, th e eroticall y charge d relationshi p betwee n Mina an d Demetriu s i s of far greater emotiona l significanc e fo r its partners than the arranged marriage of Anil and Chanda is to them. The pub lic consummation of that marriage emphasizes its social nature as a ritual celebrated out of fidelity to traditional India n norms. Its contrast with the furtive encounte r betwee n Min a an d Demetrius—th e significanc e of whose relationshi p mus t remai n hidden—coul d no t b e mor e stark . Indeed, once thei r relationshi p i s publicly known , its ver y existence i s threatened, for it goes against the norms of the Indian community (as well as, apparently, those of the white community), There now follows a remarkable montage sequence in which almos t all of the elements of Greenwood's social masala unite in their condemnation of Mina an d Demetrius's relationship. The firs t scen e in the sequenc e is an encore appearance of the tw o gossips fro m Anil' s wedding. When on e expresses delighted indignatio n a t what Mina ha s done—"Can you imagine! Dropping Harr y Pate l fo r a black!"-—the othe r vow s t o sen d he r daughters back to India lest they too take up with black men. In th e sec ond scen e o f th e sequence , a s Anil hang s u p o n Demetrius , wh o ha s phoned fo r Mina, we realize tha t he r extende d famil y i s going t o d o it s best to keep them apart. Next, an older white man, whose accent identifies him a s working class , laugh s int o a phone, a s he jokes t o on e o f th e Indians, "Ar e ya ' al l havin g nigge r trouble? " Then , afte r a sho t o f Demetrius's partner, Tyrone, staring through a locked door with a "closed" sign, Mrs. Morgan , Williben's employer, who ha d helpe d secur e an aut o

166

Hississiffi Mastts

Pbte 8.2 Tb passio n » f remantio tew

loan fo r Demetrius, promise s to cal l th e ban k to retrac t her support . In quick succession , we the n se e one o f th e Indian s o n th e phon e wit h Demetrius insisting, "There's nothing I can do. I've already hired someone else"; Alicia o n th e phon e with Demetrius , scoldin g hi m fo r takin g up with an Indian woman^there is no shortage of available black women in Greenwood; someone fro m th e loca l chambe r of commerc e informin g Demetrius that his membership has been revoked; and, in the final scene in the montage , Demetrius slamming down the phone in anger and frus tration. This montage of phone conversations brilliantly evokes the arra y of social forces working to defeat the lovers. Not only can they not contact one another, but Demetrius has become a pariah. He is clearly being punished for forgetting his "place." After a number of longer scenes in which the reprisal s against him de velop to a sort o f crescendo, Demetrius comes to th e mote l t o tal k with Mina. Jay intercepts him , an d with hel p fro m on e o f his fellow Indians , turns him away , for he has "caused enough trouble." In th e ensuin g confrontation, two different culture s meet head on. Demetrius challenges Jay: "So, you think that I ain't good enoug h for your daughter?" Although h e

Mississifpi Masala

ti?

does no t folly understand the cultural context that makes his relationship with Mina so deeply troubling to her community, he is aware that her father rejects him because he is black and uneducated. For his part, Jay responds in the expecte d manner , citing "my responsibility a s her father. . . . Once, I was just lik e you two. I though t I coul d change the world. But the world is not so quick to change." He continues, "I don't want her to go through th e same struggles that I did." Jay cannot help but assimilat e Mina's situation in Greenwood t o his in Kampala, invoking his sense of betrayal by the Ugandans , a wound as present to hi m as ever. And implici t i s his belief that Mina too will experience betrayal if she seeks to establish a n intimate relationship with someone who is not of her own ethnicity, as he did when, at the momen t of departure, hi s boyhood friend , Okel o (Konga Mbandu), turne d on him , repeating th e slo gan, "Africa i s for Africans, black Africans." To spare her that betrayal, he intends to drive Demetrius away. But Demetrius sees Jay's speech as so much evasion and when he counters, "As soon a s you got her e you starte d actin g white," latent African American hostilit y t o th e India n immigrant s finally surfaces. Demetriu s does more than simply reiterate th e charge that the Indians have adopte d white America's racial attitudes; he asserts that despite similaritie s in their postcolonial predicament , India n immigrant s act in concer t wit h white s to maintain the oppression o f African Americans . Demetrius ha s ample grounds for his bitterness: Although he has made the payment s on hi s van for nearly two years, the ban k has canceled his loan. With impeccabl e logic , th e bank' s white presiden t has pointed ou t that since Demetrius has lost most of his local clients—who happen to be the ver y Indians who ow n the town' s motels—hi s abilit y to continu e t o make his payments is very much in doubt an d so the bank must foreclose. Demetrius is thus the victim of a series of coordinated actions undertaken by both India n immigrants and white businesspeople , an d th e film treats this de facto alliance as symbolic of the general role that Indian immigrants play in relation t o other postcolonia l peoples . By aligning themselves wit h white domination , th e Indian s become agents , in thi s case, of the oppres sion of the African Americans. 18 And here we are meant to recall the situation o f Uganda an d the retribution enacte d on its Indian immigran t com munity. Demetrius's undoin g contextualize s Id i Arnin' s decisio n t o expe l Uganda's Asian citizens; "Africa is for Africans, black Africans." Not onl y ha s hi s love affai r bee n disrupted , bu t Demetrius' s financia l situation i s now desperate. Despite all his efforts ove r the past two years,

148 Hississiffi

Mastts

his business is in danger of failing. Rather than face "this shit," Tyrone has left town , headed back to Lo s Angeles an d a job driving a bus, abandoning his friend an d business partner. Demetrius an d Mina' s attemp t t o transgres s th e barrier s of self-im posed cultura l isolation th e immigran t Indian community has erected fo r itself result s in a n outbrea k o f racial/ethnic enmity between thes e tw o postcolonial groups . A s i n othe r film s featurin g interracial romance , parental an d familia l oppositio n t o it s unlikel y couple threate n a tragi c end. No t onl y will intergrou p hostilit y intensify , bu t th e tie s tha t bind Mina to her extended famil y may break as a result of the pressures put on them by her father's opposition t o her romance. But despit e th e presenc e in Mississippi Masala o f so many of the usua l elements of unlikely couple narratives—and in the face of much harsh and dismissive criticism—th e innovative way these element s ar e used t o ex plore the options for acculturation available to immigrants in a new country deserv e respect . The dilemm a facing th e immigran t India n commu nity is that th e ver y desire t o maintai n it s traditiona l cultur e may result not only in the destruction of family, the basis of such culture, but also implicate thes e immigrant s in the exploitatio n o f other postcolonial group s in their ne w homeland. Two Reconciliation s Mississippi Masala end s with tw o important reconciliations, both affirm ing the film's political visio n of postcolonial solidarity . In th e first, Mina decides t o pursu e he r relationshi p wit h Demetrius , eve n thoug h thi s threatens an irreparable break with her father. In the second, returning to Uganda to pursue his lawsuit, Jay discovers that he has been wrong to oppose Mina's relationship with Demetrius. Both narrativ e strands are the resul t of Jay's receipt o f a letter declaring that he will finally have his day in court. Since the famil y has been thrown out of the Monte Cristo—yet another expulsion!—as a result of a suit that Demetrius ha s filed against Anil, Jay decides tha t th e bes t thin g for th e entire family is to move back to Uganda. For Mina, this is an extremity, and not simply because it means that her separation fro m Demetriu s will be irrevocable. We have been shown how Mina chafe s agains t the limitation s o f the immigran t Indian ghetto. For her restless protofeminism, returning to Uganda would mean the elimina tion of the one cultural possibility she sees as offering her the hop e of ere-

Mississifpi Masala 16

9

ating an acceptabl e lif e for herself , namely, affiliation wit h the Africa n American community and its practices. This is what her relationship with Demetrius symbolize s t o he r an d what sh e fear s woul d be foreclose d t o her by returning to Uganda. Faced wit h thi s prospect , Min a act s decisively , taking Anil' s ca r and hunting dow n Demetrius—wh o ha s decided t o leav e Greenwood too — ostensibly t o sa y good-bye. Initiall y coo l to he r overture , Demetrius' s anger soon overtakes him: She is the agent of his ruin. Now provoked, she accuses him o f having initiated thei r relationshi p t o mak e Alicia jealous. He admits this, ruefully acknowledging, "I never thought tha t I would fal l in lov e with you. " At thi s point , Min a ask s t o go with hi m an d th e tw o then decide to become partners. They head off into the unknown in an attempt to save Demetrius's va n and, thus, his business. Mina's entry into partnership with Demetrius seal s the choice that she has made about how to live her life, in effect rejectin g the India n posture of ethnic superiorit y t o affiliat e instea d wit h blac k Americans, a people like her own , that ha s suffere d th e devastatin g effect s o f European colo nialism. And her choice epitomizes th e film's case that in the postcolonial world, th e option s ar e stark: Eithe r solidarit y amon g th e colonize d o r complicity with the colonizer . One proble m remains : Mina's reconciliation with Demetriu s come s at the cos t o f her relationshi p t o he r father . When sh e calls to explai n he r choice to her parents, her father refuses t o talk with her. Her challeng e t o his patriarchal authorit y is too muc h for him an d s o he reject s her. Like Capulet an d Matt Drayton , this mal e patriarch canno t acknowledg e his daughter's righ t to make decisions for herself. The film's final sequence is once again set in Uganda, where Jay has returned to pursue his lawsuit and where he finally confronts his past. Jay's journey begins wit h hi s discover y that hi s childhoo d friend , Okelo , is dead. At th e schoo l at which Okelo worked, Jay is told b y one of Okelo's fellow teacher s tha t h e simpl y disappeared aroun d 1972 , durin g "al l th e trouble." Shaken , Jay no w realizes that Okelo' s deat h ma y well hav e resulted fro m his , Okelo's, efforts t o free Jay from jail. Thus, Jay's bitterness over hi s dea d friend' s imagine d betraya l wa s itself a betrayal o f thei r friendship. Jay next returns to the hous e in Kampala , only to find it in ruins, ani mals no w grazing on its once carefully tende d grounds . We ar e meant to see that Jay's desire to return to Kampal a is nothing bu t fantasy , based on his memor y o f what thing s onc e wer e like , an d a refusa l t o fac e tha t

170

Hississiffi

Mtstla

everything ha s changed. There is no longer th e gran d hous e i n Kampala in which h e might live , just a s there i s no longer th e frien d to whom h e can apologize. Writing to Kinnu , Jay explains what h e has learned. He tell s he r tha t Mina wa s righ t whe n sh e upbraided hi m fo r no t sayin g good-by e t o Okelo. More centrally, he tells her that he has learned that "home is where the hear t i s an d m y hear t i s wit h you. " This commen t recall s Mat t Drayton's paea n to th e primac y of love i n huma n life. Bu t unlik e Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Mississippi Masala retain s it s politicize d under standing of love: IE the final scene of the film, as Jay watches som e danc ing black Ugandans, a black baby reaches ou t t o hi m an d h e hug s it , his embrace symbolically affirming th e principle o f solidarity. Employing man y aspects o f narrativ e structur e commo n t o unlikel y couple drama s fro m Romeo and Juliet t o Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Mississippi Masala use s its setting among immigrant Indians in the south ern Unite d State s nevertheles s t o mak e a distinctive politica l statement . Its vision of an affiliation betwee n blacks and immigrant Indians is registered an d validated a s the lov e of Mina an d Demetrius win s through de spite the obstacle s it faces. As in Romeo and Juliet, a crucial aspect of that vision i s the rejectio n o f arrange d marriag e i n favo r o f romanti c partner choice: i n th e contex t o f this film, an agend a requirin g tha t instea d o f withdrawing int o a pure India n ethnicity , Greenwood' s India n immi grants acknowledg e that the circumstances under which the y have to live have many significant similarities t o thos e o f the blac k Americans living there.

Notes 1. See, fo r example , th e review s b y Ceceli e S . Barry , Cineaste, 19:2— 3 (1992-1993): pp . 66-67, and Erika Surat Andersen, Film Quarterly, 46:4 (1993): pp. 23-26. 2. The film's narrative strategy can be challenged on two grounds: First, the experience of African American s is discontinuous with that of many postcolonials in tha t their connections t o thei r ow n African root s were systematically de stroyed; second, African American s may not se e themselves as postcolonials be cause the y identif y themselve s a s Americans despit e th e myria d injustice s t o which this country has subjected their people. 3. It i s not clear what it mean s for Indians to think of themselves as sharing a national identity, given all the significan t difference s tha t divide the population, such as religion, caste, etc.

Mississifpi Masala

t?l

4,1 remind the reader that the term "race," despite its evident problems, seems necessary as away of characterizing the situation of African Americans . See footnote 1 , Chapter 6 . 5.1 see the tensio n I outlin e a s applying beyond th e cas e of the Indian s pre sented in the film, extending, for example, to my own situation a s a first generation German-Jewis h American . My analysis bears similarity t o Werner Sollors' s distinction betwee n consen t an d descen t identitie s i n Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Descent in American Culture (New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1986). 6. Two examples of reviews that criticize the film's use of stereotypes are those by Cecelie S. Barry and Erika Sura t Andersen cite d in footnot e 1 , above. 7. Homi K . Bhabha, "The Othe r Question : Difference, Discrimination , an d the Discours e o f Colonialism, " i n Black British Cultural Studies; A Reader, Houston A . Baker, Manthia Diawara, and Ruth H. Lindeborg, eds . (Chicago and London: Universit y of Chicago Press, 1996) , p. 98. 8. At a formal level , the film's structure manifests the hybridit y it attributes t o the identit y o f postcolonial people . It s Africa n sequenc e i s filmed i n a more avant-garde manner , denying it s viewers easy access to it s narrative , whereas its American sequence s are filmed in typica l Hollywood style , with clearly identifiable transitions. 9. The articl e b y bel l hook s an d Anuradh a Dingwane y i s title d simpl y "Mississippi Masala," Z Magazine, July/August 1992 , pp. 41-43. 10. E. An n Kaplan , Looking for the Other: Feminism, Film, and the Imperial Gaze (New York and London: Routledge, 1997) , p. 177 . 11. This is emphasized whe n Demetriu s bring s Min a hom e t o a family cele bration, an incident I discuss later in this chapter. 12. Since Id i Ami n occupie d fo r a tim e th e America n media' s designate d "crazed dictator" slot, a role later to be filled by Mu'ammar Gadhafi and , more recently, Saddam Hussein, th e film's sympathetic presentation o f him i s startling , Amin's policy of expulsion smacks of the ver y sort o f drive for a pure ethnicity, and t o muc h mor e destructive effect , tha n tha t th e film criticizes i n th e India n community. Nonetheless, the film validates Amin's characterization o f the problem. This and all subsequent quotations fro m th e film are from m y transcription o f the film's sound track . 13. The practice s tha t establis h th e identit y o f the member s o f the India n community are not necessaril y practices that were actually brought fro m Indi a or practiced b y the immigrant s there . What is crucial is that the y regard th e prac tices as ones that Indians should follow. 14. One uniqu e feature of this film is that whites are only present peripherally. The centra l characters ar e African, African American , and Indian immigrants . 15. Mississippi Masalds exceptionalizatio n of Demetrius show s that i t too, n o less tha n Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, worries tha t viewer s will respon d t o a

172

Hississiffi

Mtstla

black male on the basis of negative stereotype. The film is thus liable to the criti cism that it reinforces the very same cliches by the various strategies it uses to distance Demetrius fro m them . 16. It i s not clear whether Alici a was Demetrius's girlfriend o r wife. Althoug h WiEiben tell s her , muc h t o Demetrius' s displeasure , that sh e will alway s b e a member o f the family , ther e i s no furthe r discussio n tha t disambiguate s he r status. 17. Mina's view of love is typically Western; love is seen as located in two individuals with no regard for how it affects others . 18.1 use the term "align" in a slightly differen t sens e than I did in The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation (Philadelphia : Templ e Universit y Press, 1990), chap. 7, Its usage here has important implication s for understanding how power works.

9 All: Fear Eats the Soul The Privilege s o f "Race " Each of the films discussed in the three preceding chapters employs a narrative of interracial romance to criticall y explor e rac e relations i n American society. Inevitably, all raise questions abou t the viabilit y of integrationis t strategies a s a response to histori c injustice , and each invests its hopes i n a specific political program—two , Guess Who's Coming to Dinner an d Mississippi Masala, i n integration; the third, Jungle Feverf i n separatism. Like these , Raine r Werner Fassbinder' s Angst essen Seek auf(AH: Fear Eats the Soul, 1974 ) examines the natur e of racism. Alfa undertakin g transcends th e familia r assumption s about racis m that dominat e th e othe r films, however. Although numerou s acts of individual race prejudice are depicted—as is true, too, of both Guess Who's Coming to Dinner said Jungle Fever—this fil m goe s beyon d thes e t o th e mor e profoun d questio n o f racism's persistence. It is the film's attempt to document an answer to this that makes it a uniquely probing unlikely couple film. This being understood, critics ' complaints abou t the film's lack of concern with th e condition s o f Gastarbeiter (guest workers) in Germany—of whom its male lead is one—recede to irrelevance. The form s o f prejudice shown i n Alt, like those in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, are not al l that extreme. And unlik e the mor e "realistic"/«#£/
174

All: fear Eat* the Soul

But al l this i s simply beside th e point , for Ali is less concerne d wit h moralizing abou t th e injustic e o f racism than wit h understandin g it s in tractability, its resistance to efforts t o eliminate it. What Fassbinder's film shows is that racial hierarchy is produced/maintained b y a network of unacknowledged socia l privilege that "racial superiors" enjoy in exchange for their participation i n practices of racial domination an d subordination . This analysis, which is represented throug h th e changing relational dynamic i n Alt's interracia l unlikel y couple, explain s racism' s persistence : The benefit s o f racial privileg e contaminat e eve n th e mos t wel l inten tioned. However othe r films of interracial romanc e resolve thei r unlikel y relationships, the y suppose that in the face of racism, individuals can hope to mak e a difference. 1 A/is pessimisti c assessmen t is that racial hierarchy is so deeply imbedded that this suppositio n i s hopelessly naive . Although th e focu s o f the presen t chapte r i s on A/is exploratio n o f racism, it wil l als o cal l attentio n t o Fassbinder' s us e of nonnaturalisti c techniques. Whereas th e othe r film s considere d i n thi s stud y ar e essentially naturalistic , Ali employ s variou s device s that cal l attentio n t o it s constructed nature. 2 These have been the subject of a great deal of discus sion an d ar e of much interest amon g film theorists, bu t I discus s the m only as they serve to advance Fassbinder's narrativ e objectives.3 In placin g Ali alongsid e thre e America n film s dealin g wit h racism , I take the "German (Aryan)-foreigner " dichotomy i n German y to parallel the "white-black" dichotomy i n the Unite d States . Sinc e the forme r ap pears to be a distinction i n nationality rather than race, it may seem that I confuse th e two . For almost two centuries, however, German nationalis m has articulate d itsel f withi n a racialized discours e i n whic h "purity " ha s notoriously figured. As a consequence, members of other races are seen as posing a threat t o the integrit y o f the Germa n nation . For this reason , 1 hold tha t it makes sense to interpret Alfs concern s as continuous with th e preoccupations o f th e America n films , eve n a s the fil m surpasse s thei r more limited understandings . Creating the Couple Crucial t o Alfs narrativ e strateg y i s its depictio n o f a relationship tha t provides dee p an d heartfel t satisfaction s t o it s tw o unlikely lovers. Onl y because o f thi s ca n th e difficultie s tha t resul t fro m th e couple' s racia l makeup be made to bear the significance the film assigns them . It i s the ver y implausibility of Ali (E l Hed i ben Salem) , a handsome young, Moroccan Gastarbeiter,4 finding Emmy Kurowski (Brigette Mira) ,

M: feat fats the Seal t?

S

an elderly, somewhat homely German Putzfrau (cleanin g woman), a suitable sexual and romantic partner that leads to their first encounter. On her way home from work, a sudden rainstorm forces Emm y to seek shelter in a bar catering t o Moroccan gues t workers. From th e very first shot afte r the titl e sequence , Emmy's socia l isolatio n i s emphasized. Thus, we see her ente r th e Asphal t Pu b i n a long sho t take n fro m th e en d o f the ba r farthest fro m th e door, where all the other patrons are clustered, A reverse shot no w shows AH, a friend, an d th e owne r of th e ba r cooll y gazin g a t this surprising customer. A great deal of Fassbinder criticism is devoted t o the importanc e o f the "gaze " i n thi s film. 5 I n th e presen t context , th e gazes directe d a t Emm y register he r presenc e a s unwelcome and signa l her to keep her distance. This way of representing the hostil e reactio n of the bar' s familiar s t o Emm y presages th e film's later an d repeated us e of the gaz e t o communicat e socia l disapprova l o f th e film' s unlikel y relationship. When Barbara (Barbara Valentin), the Asphalt Pub's owner, approaches to take her order, Emmy apologizes fo r her presence, alluding to the rain and t o the "strange music" that she hears whenever she walks by. Presse d to order, Emmy's discomfort is evident: BARBARA: What do you want to drink? EMMY: What's the usual? BARBARA: Everyon e drink s wha t the y like . Perhaps , a beer o r a cola? EMMY: Yes. That's fine, BARBARA: What then? EMMY: Cola, please,6 Told sh e can drink whatever sh e likes, she still has trouble expressin g her own desire. Evidently, her inclination i s to conform t o whatever others are doing, as if to deflect their attention b y blending into their context . Although Emm y feels alie n in the bar, All, a guest worker, seems much more at home in this environment. As he and his friend lean in at the bar, he is even propositioned b y a German woma n (Katharina Herberg) who patronizes th e place . He decline s he r sexua l advance—"Prick broke," he tells her—but this is clearly his milieu. The Asphal t Pu b provides a social space i n whic h thi s foreigne r can fee l a t home , o r a t an y rate, mor e a t home than the native Emmy. The ver y first scene marks Ali an d Emm y as a very unlikely duo, and this i n tw o ways—race an d age . First , Emmy an d Al i ar e members o f

176

All: fear Eat* the Soul

different "races." As suggested above , the trope of race has been important to Germa n identity sinc e at least the earl y nineteenth century. 7 The ide a of a pure Volk (people ) play s a role i n German y analogous, i n importan t ways to tha t playe d by "whiteness" i n the Unite d States . I n th e nam e of "Germanness" o r "Aryanness, " members of differen t socia l group s hav e been persecuted , th e Holocaus t bein g th e mos t horrifi c result o f thi s racialized thinking. Fo r want of a better term , we can classify Emm y as a "true" German, that is, a member of the dominant race. (Her famil y name is Kurowski; she married a Pole afte r th e war. Her Germannes s is already compromised b y this, a s her neighbor s ar e quick to poin t ou t onc e the y have seen her with All.) As a Moroccan gues t worker, a Scbwarzer (black), Ali is treated a s less than human by most of the German s with whom he has contact . The secon d categor y separatin g Al i an d Emm y is age. By every social assumption, th e dowdy , fiftyish Emmy is a n unlikel y object o f youthfu l male desire. Ali is young and sexually attractive, as the ba r patron's come on makes evident. One o f the ways in which sexism functions i s to make a sexual relationshi p betwee n a n "older" woman an d a "younger" ma n so cially inappropriate. For Emmy to become Ait's lover, she must claim for herself desires that her world would regard a s obscene in a woman of her age. On th e other hand , to her fellow Germans, the basis of Emmy's relationship with Ali can only be sexual, for how else to explain her interest in a Gastar&eiter?s Ironically, Ali first approaches Emm y in the ba r a s a sort of joke. Th e woman whose sexua l overture Ali ha s just turned down maliciously suggests tha t h e as k "the ol d lady " to dance . When h e doe s so , Emmy is somewhat bewildered. Sh e protests tha t sh e ha s no t dance d i n a lon g time, but he persists—"Sitting alone not good," he tells her—and, characteristically, she agrees, "Prick broke," "Sitting alon e no t good"—All' s language sets hi m apar t from th e film's other characters . Lik e man y guest workers , h e speak s German in short, staccato sentences in which there are neither articles nor conjugated verbs . It i s difficul t t o captur e th e ful l impac t o f thes e sen tences in English, which lacks the inflections of the German. 9 For example, the film's title is drawn from on e of Ali's sayings: Angst essen Seek auf, A more literal translation i s "Fear Eat Up Soul." Despite his limited com mand of the forma l rule s of German—even to a certain extent because of it—Ali's languag e i s striking i n it s directness . When h e say s t o Emmy , "Sitting alon e not good," he is able both t o express empathy for her situation and to cut through th e ways in which correct speec h maintains social

M: feat fats the Seal

ill

boundaries eve n a s it foster s other type s o f communication. 10 Unlike Emmy, who often resort s to banalities, his language is notable for the im mediacy of its perception an d the clarity of its judgment. When Emm y leaves the bar , All accompanie s he r home . Waiting fo r the rai n t o le t up, they stan d i n the entrywa y of her apartmen t buildin g and talk. During thei r conversation , it becomes even clearer that Emmy' s life i s empty of significance . When A H asks her wha t typ e o f work sh e does, Emmy confesses that she is embarrassed to tell people she is a cleaning woman because they ridicule her for it. "Not Ali," he responds under standingly. She warms to him, admitting ho w nice it is to hav e someone to tal k to , for she i s alone most o f the time . When Al i tell s he r tha t i n Morocco familie s liv e together , so that mother s d o no t win d u p alone , Emrny wistfully repeat s the cliche, "Other countries, other customs. " This interchange underlines Emmy's social isolation an d her feelings of inconsequence. As if in a mirror, All's own subordinate social position al lows hi m t o recogniz e he r a s a person. The intimac y the tw o ar e able t o establish, and that neithe r otherwise enjoys , is based on a mutual need t o be fully acknowledge d by another. Emboldened, Emm y decides t o invite Ali upstairs. As they sip brandy, the two continue to open up to one another. It seems that Emmy has little understanding o f the situatio n o f guest workers, fo r sh e i s surprised t o hear that Ali and his comrades are forced t o live six men to a room. From this perspective , he r ow n modest two-bedroo m apartmen t seem s luxurious. Ali informs her that Arabs are treated in Germany as if they were not human. This recalls an earlier reference to the racis m of his German fellow workers. While describin g hi s work to Ernmy, he ha d tol d he r tha t Germans refus e t o associat e with Arabs : "German master , Arab dog." In the fac e o f constan t humiliation , he no w tell s her , i t i s better no t t o think—"No think, much good"—for thinkin g only leads to futil e preoc cupation with how awful one's situation is. To spare Ali a long, late-night tra m ride home, Ernmy makes up a bed for him . Unable to sleep, he goes to her room to talk. There, he confesses that h e too is alone much of the tim e an d that hi s lif e consist s mostly of work an d drink, "Maybe Germa n right: Arab no t person. " Emm y com forts hi m with th e reassuranc e that German s are wrong. Ali responds t o her acknowledgmen t by caressing he r ar m an d th e camer a fade s a s they begin to have sex. The relationshi p tha t no w develops betwee n Ali and Emm y quickens both their lives . We know that Emmy' s work provides her with n o satis faction an d that she has little contac t with he r children—or with anyone

178

All: fear Eat* the Soul

else for that matter . As a n older woman who n o longer fits the norm s of sexual attractiveness , sh e i s more or les s abject . For hi s part , Ali , "Arab dog," fills his life with work, drink, and periodic casual sex. The couplin g of their two lives now endows the experience of each with significance. In part , thi s i s because they provide one another wit h emo tional support . Mor e important , despit e thei r margina l social positions , each can feel like a human being because, through the couple, they receive acknowledgment from on e another. Ironically, it is their marginalit y that allows them t o come together, trumping the importan t socia l difference s between them . If we limit our attention t o the manne r in which th e love between Ali and Emm y is developed, we find a now-familiar picture: As long a s they are off by themselves, they seem untroubled b y the socia l differences be tween them . Unlike th e interracia l romanc e Spike Le e depicte d i n hi s Jungle Fever, the attractio n thes e two have for one another ha s nothing t o do with th e allur e of an exotidzed, forbidde n Other . Al i an d Emm y are simply two people who have managed to open themselves to one another in the way we call love. Thus, as the first part of the film ends, the two unlikely lovers seem able to shape a mutually satisfying life together. Although it is repeatedly made clear tha t thi s coupl e i s viewe d b y other s a s a n affront , thei r bon d promises t o surmoun t the difficultie s the y will encounter. We shal l see , however, that thi s promise cannot withstan d th e pressure s placed o n it . Emmy an d Al i ar e no t a s isolated a s they feel—immerse d i n a deeply racist society, they will be denied the Disneyesqu e "forever after " mocked by Jungle Fevers, Flipper Purify . Exploring Racia l Privileg e If th e firs t thir d o f the fil m depict s ho w these tw o marginal characters come t o provid e one anothe r wit h unaccustome d self-esteem and emo tional security, the nex t section exposes the now publicly identifiable couple i n almos t clinical fashio n t o th e racis m of their socia l environment. Fassbinder's aim is to demonstrate that Emmy's status as a "true" German endows her with privilege s of which sh e is completely unaware. He pro ceeds by indirection, however: By virtue of her relationshi p with Ali, she forfeits tha t privilege and comes to be treated as if she were herself a racial Other. Totally unprepare d for this ordea l of rejection, by the en d o f this section of the film, she breaks down in grief.

M: feat fats the Seal

if9

The lesso n o f this painfu l sequenc e of episodes i s that even th e leas t members of the "maste r race " enjoy racia l privilege—that is , a set of ad vantages that accru e because of membership in a racially superior caste, That there is such privilege is generally not understood by those who en joy it , sinc e the y d o no t experienc e it s workings as unusual. Rather , in ways imperceptibl e t o them , it structure s thei r ver y assumptions about who the y are and how they deserve to be treated. As a result, the los s of that privileg e i s registered existentiall y a s the dissolutio n o f thei r ow n selves. The subtletie s of racial privilege can be illustrate d b y the well-know n disparity betwee n th e experienc e o f black an d white shopper s i n th e United States . Well-dressed whit e American shoppers are rarely accorded a secon d loo k b y suspicious clerks , whereas well-dressed blacks , whose skin colo r i s taken t o signif y a propensity t o shoplift , are accustomed t o intense an d sometimes hostile scrutiny. 11 The latte r experienc e is generally understood a s indicative of prejudice, but th e relaxe d attitude towar d white patrons is less often identifie d as part of the sam e phenomenon. I t is, therefore, necessar y to insis t that privilegin g whit e skin—o r i n thi s case, German nationality—is every bit a s racist as demeaning black. Particularly strikin g i n thi s middl e sectio n of AH is its showin g that even Emmy—an older woman lacking education or skills, the widow of a Pole—has unwittingl y benefite d fro m racia l privilege . Fassbinder' s demonstration proceed s i n systemati c fashion , examinin g the damag e done to each of four sets of relationships in Emmy's life—with he r famil y members, her coworkers, her fellow apartment dwellers, and her local grocer—as a result of her relationship with AIL The seriousnes s of Emmy's transgression is immediately brought home at the smal l family gatherin g a t which sh e ha s planned to announc e her marriage. When she presents Ali to he r children, the result s are nothing less tha n catastrophic: On e son , Brun o (Pete r Gauhe) , kicks in he r TV; the second , Albert (Kar l Scheydt), calls he r a whore; t o he r daughter , Krista (Inn Hermann) , the situation is "piggish." As they leave in scandalized disgust , what was to hav e been a joyous occasion end s with Emm y weeping. The audienc e had been warned there would be trouble—the first time Emmy and Ali ascended the stair s together t o her apartment, her neigh bors ha d cast racial aspersions on them both. But this bit o f unpleasantness ha d no t conveye d the dept h o f these prejudices , which overwhelm even family ties.

110

All: fear Eat* the Soul

A secon d inciden t occurs in th e loca l grocery when Ali ask s fo r some margarine i n perfectl y understandabl e German , onl y t o hav e Her r Angermayer (Walter Sedlmayr) , its proprietor, preten d not to understand his foreigner's syntax. Subsequently confronted by Emmy, the shop owner denies he r charge of prejudice and throws he r out. H e woul d rather no t have her as a customer than serve her foreigner lover. As we have seen, Emmy's neighbors are scandalized by her relationshi p with Ali. O f course, they gossip among themselves, but more egregiously, they not only attempt t o have her evicted b y informing the landlord tha t she ha s someone living with he r an d cal l the polic e when Ali ha s a few friends in , they also generally make life i n the buildin g miserable for th e two of them. Finally, Emmy's colleagues shun her when they find out sh e is married to Ali. That these cleaning women were prejudiced against foreigners became evident on th e da y after Emm y and Ali slept together. Presumably to tes t th e waters , Emm y raised the subjec t o f relationship s betwee n German women and guest workers, and the response was unanimous and clear: Any woman who would consort with one of "them" is a whore. On e of her coworkers, Paula Borchert (Gusti Kreissl), adds that n o one speaks to a woman i n he r buildin g wh o i s marrie d t o a guest worker . When Emmy says, "Maybe she needs no one else if he speaks to her, " Paula responds with a line tha t foreshadow s Emmy's own fate : "No on e can Eve without others. No one, Emmy." Thus, it i s no surprise that afte r Paul a visits the apartmen t an d meets Ali, he r fellow workers freeze Emm y out, treating her as a pariah.12 This scene ends with a shot of Emrny standing on the staircase of the buildin g in which she works, looking out the window. She is shot fro m outsid e th e building, framed b y the building's geometry, and this shot is held motion less fo r several seconds, interrupting th e flow of the narrative . Both fea tures—the use of architecture as a framing device and the stationary camera that lingers on its subject—are typical of Fassbinder's technique in this film, here providin g viewers a visual correlate o f Emmy' s isolatio n an d dejection.13 Emmy's world reacts with disgust to her relationship with Ali. Thus, in this sequenc e o f episodes , th e fil m straightforwardl y addresse s thos e stereotypes o f the blac k male sexuality that Guess Who's Coming to Dinner tries s o hard t o circumvent . Instead o f evasion, Fassbinder directl y con fronts racism' s sexual demonology: Ali, this black man, is in love with a n aging German Putzfraul A s a result, the audience is less invested in eroti c

Ali: feat fats the Seal !8

t

fantasies abou t on-screen event s and so is able to see that the depth of animosity this couple brings out in others can only be accounted for psychodynamically—as a defensive reactio n agains t unacknowledgeabl e desire. Emrny can onl y be viewed a s a whore b y others who projec t thei r ow n recognition o f All's sexuall y desirability onto he r an d then condem n he r for actin g o n it , eve n though tha t is not th e groun d o f her relationshi p with him. When Emm y an d Ali subsequentl y go t o a n outdoor caf e an d fin d themselves once more the objec t of hostile gazes , this time of the entir e staff, Emm y once again breaks down (see Photo 9.1). Clearly , she had n o idea what she was getting herself into. Unaware of her own investment in racial privilege, sh e coul d no t anticipat e how costly he r transgressio n would be. As a result, she is only able to see herself as an isolated targe t of the hatred of others, the very sort of experience that when they first met, Ali had told her about as characteristic of his own life.

Love Versu s Privileg e The thir d and final part of Alt—up to the apparent reconciliation between Ali and Emmy and his subsequent collapse and hospitaUzation—-has puzzled viewers and critic s alike . All the character s appear t o hav e reversed their behavior : Those whose prejudic e le d them t o rejec t Emm y now make u p t o her ; she, in turn , begins t o bull y Ali an d humiliat e hi m in front o f others; an d Ali, who had earlier rejected Barbaras advances, now turns to her for solace. What are we to make of all this? Critics who hav e focused onl y o n th e supportin g cas t attribut e thei r changed behavior to their recognition tha t Emmy was actually very useful to them : The groce r need s he r business , her so n need s a baby-sitter, a neighbor wants to use her storage locker, and her coworkers need her support in securing a promised raise. Typical is Judith Mayne's reading of the significance of this reversal: "Social behavior is seen as the function o f basic economic motivation. 'Prejudice' is no longer indulged when child care service is necessary or when groceries have to be sold."14 According to this interpretation, th e narrativ e now turns on the truis m that when it is economically advantageous to discriminate, people will do so; and when their interests require them to veil their prejudice, they will behave accordingly. This emphasis on the motivations o f the film's secondary characters ignores the relation between their changed behavior toward Emmy and the emergence of difficulties betwee n her and Ali, however. Burns and Lamb,

182

All: fear Eat* the Soul

Photo 9. 1 Emm y mi Al l a s th e objec t e f others ' gaz e

who d o mak e this connection , argu e tha t th e rapp r ochemen t betwee n Emmy an d he r fello w Germans allow s issue s intrinsic t o th e coupl e t o surface. Thus, in their view, the racis t surround that seeme d the source of their troubl e reall y brought Emm y an d All together , coverin g u p otherwise serious incompatibilities. 15 In thi s interpretation , th e significanc e of this reversal lies in its depiction o f the ways in which obstacles external to a couple can create a false sens e of connection betwee n th e partners. Burns and Lamb ar e right t o connect thes e narrativ e strands, but thei r analysis fail s t o correctl y situat e th e significanc e o f Emmy' s increasingl y racist behavior toward Ali. This change, on which, if I am right, the whole point of Fassbinder's inquir y into th e persistenc e o f racism rests, is puz zling—for althoug h sh e has admitted t o having been in the Naz i party as a young woman, Emmy has up to now shown no evidence that sh e har bors racist sentiments . The first incident in which Emmy' s changed attitud e toward Al i is revealed occurs when Frau Ellis (Anita Buchler), a neighbor, asks if she can store som e thing s i n Emmy' s cellar . Frau Ellis' s willingness to approac h

AH: fear Cats tke Seal I

S3

Emmy is the first signal to her that people ma y be willing to overlook her breach o f the norm s of racial etiquette, (Th e audienc e has already seen, in an incident of which Emrny herself is unaware, the grocer's wife urge him to mak e up with Emm y to regai n he r business.) Emm y agree s to Fra u Ellis s request and promises that All will help move her things. Emmy returns to her apartment and, in essence, commands All to provide the hel p she has just promised. Since, as far as he knows, the neighbor s ar e racists who have done everything imaginable to get him thrown out of the apart ment, this seems inexplicable to him. Offering n o explanation, Emmy acts as if Frau Ellis has been their frien d al l along, curtly ordering Ali to move things t o the cellar. Although thi s inciden t signal s a change i n Emmy' s attitud e towar d Ali—albeit rathe r subtly— a late r inciden t make s things clearer . Ali has asked Emmy to make couscous for him, but instead of responding to this expression o f his homesickness, she proceeds to lectur e him . First o f all, she does no t like couscous—as if that were a reason to deny his request— and anyhow , he needs to become used to thing s German . The ide a tha t foreigners shoul d trad e i n thei r ways—couscou s fo r Kartoffel-—nis, of course, one frequently brandished by racists. The introductio n o f alternative practices int o German y sullies the purit y of the Volk. Emmy's refusa l smacks of this attitude. How different fro m th e wistful, "Other countries , other customs, " with whic h Emm y earlier me t Ali' s descriptio n o f th e multigenerational Moroccan household . The issu e here is not, of course, whether Emrn y will make couscous for Ali, bu t th e attitud e behin d Emmy' s response : tha t Morocca n custom s have nothing t o offe r Germany . Instead of allowing Ali a space in whic h to bring his own cultural background into his life in Germany, Emmy demands tha t h e reject his heritage an d conform t o Germa n practice . Th e film here asserts that the politics o f integration i s covertly one of assimilation, demanding that others reject their own culture in favor of that of the dominant group. 16 In ligh t of Emmy's own mixed status as the wif e o f a Pole, her assertion of the superiority of German practices is deeply ironic . The mos t shocking example of Emmy's collusive embrace of racism occurs whe n he r tw o Germa n coworker s visi t he r home . Two events con tribute t o their renewe d acceptanc e o f Emmy as one of them. First , after their othe r coworker ha d bee n fire d fo r stealing, she was replaced b y a Yugoslav, Yolanda (Helg a Ballhaus ) is the group' s ne w scapegoat , th e Other whose exclusion affirm s thei r superiority , so that Ernm y no longer need occup y this position. Second , the women hav e not received the pay

184

All: fear Eat* the Soul

raise due them an d they require Emmy's participation a s they plan to get what they think they are owed. Grateful for their approach, Emmy invites her tw o Germa n colleagues , Paula an d Hedwi s (Margi t Symd) , t o he r apartment to discuss strategy. Earlier, when Paula had been there, she had met All and this had led to Emmy's ostracism. This time , Emm y submit s All t o thei r Orientalizin g gazes. The scen e opens with a shot of Ali taken from behin d Emm y and her coworkers , Paul a comments , "He' s s o good looking , Emmy . Really. And s o clean." This encourages Emm y to laud her husband's cleanlines s in term s tha t transfor m him int o a n objec t of prurient curiosity . When Ali's build is remarked on, Emmy has him flex his biceps for her cowork ers t o examine . Fingering his bunched muscles , they circle aroun d him , marveling at the softness o f his skin (see Photo 9.2) . Doubly disturbin g abou t thi s awfu l scen e is how willingly Emm y de means Ali in exchange for her colleagues' envious approval. In effect , sh e treats her relationship with him as if it were the purely sexual one the oth ers fantasize. Emm y further demean s Ali by talking abou t him a s if h e were not there, as if he could not understand what was being said. Stung, Ali breaks through th e circl e to escap e th e women, promptin g one to ask what is wrong. "He has Ms moods," Emmy responds, "that's his foreign mentality. " This las t commen t show s ho w fundamentally Emmy has changed. Ernm y has just acquired some standing with he r colleagues , who now admit they find the young and muscular Ali attractive. But their price for their acceptanc e is his humiliation—he is a moody foreigner, irrational, unlik e "true" Germans who meri t respect— a humiliatio n tha t Emrny willingly enacts. Emmy's precipitou s fal l int o racis m i s difficult t o interpre t becaus e Fassbinder doe s no t allo w us access to th e subjectivit y of his characters . Rather, through a variety of cinematic techniques—such as the extende d still shots that break up the flow of the narrative and the rather blank faces of the actors as they deliver their lines—we are denied sympathetic identification with their interior lives.17 Nonetheless, onc e we recall how Emm y has suffere d a s a result of he r racial demotion , he r behavio r i s readily understood . He r colleagues ' re newed acceptanc e ha s allowed Emm y to experienc e racia l privilege onc e again, with her racist treatment o f Ali the price of her return ticket. It is as if she now understands what enjoying the privileges associate d with being German requires . Prejudic e an d privileg e ar e but tw o sides o f the sam e racist coin. I n principle , alternative s were ope n t o Ernmy . For example ,

AH: fear Cats tke Seal

ttS

Photo 9.2 All on display

she could hav e turne d t o Yolanda an d mad e commo n caus e with her . Instead, rather tha n op t fo r solidarity wit h a fellow victi m o f he r col leagues' racism, Emmy seems only to o gla d t o win bac k for hersel f th e racial privilege—and the self—sh e ha s lost. Precise psychological explanations of Emmy's behavior ar e not impor tant to Fassbinder, His interest is in showing how racial privilege works.18 Once Emmy has experienced what it is like to be treated as racially Other, how it feel s t o be a foreigner in Germany, she is prepared t o assum e the cruel responsibilities such privilege entails. Dismissed and disdained, Emmy and Ali were attracted to one another out of a shared need for acknowledgment. Because of their isolation, they could think of themselves as two loveless atoms come together t o forg e a common life . The fil m reveal s the illusor y natur e of this belief. Like al l human beings , Emm y an d Al i ar e socia l individuals , thei r identitie s bound up in a complex web of relationships. Emmy—whose changing attitudes toward Ali are, after all , the real focus of this film—is not an individual who i s incidentally German ; her Germannes s constitutes much of who sh e thinks she is, although sh e is not full y awar e of this, even at th e end of the film. Alt i s a study of the impac t of Emmy's social identity on her feelings and attitudes .

IS6

All: fear Eat* the Soul

The strikin g aspect of Fassbinder's study of racial privilege, then, is its demonstration tha t eve n as socially marginal a German a s Emmy is ac corded significan t racial privilege. Although it migh t seer n that both Al i and Emm y are so marginal as to preclud e a power differentia l between them, racial privilege is too deeply implicated in Emmy's existence for this to be true. The natur e of the privileges she enjoys emerge s from th e con trast between Emmy's treatment before she became involved with Ali and her treatment subsequently. Fassbinder's cynica l analysis is that awareness of racial privilege, rathe r tha n promotin g solidarit y with th e oppressed , actually reinforces racism. The weaknes s of Emmy's character lies in he r hunger for acceptance, a hunger that result s in her acquiescence in social injustice. Emrny, who coul d no t eve n order a drink i n th e Asphal t Pu b without first knowing "the usual, " cannot b e expected t o react to he r ostracism with sympathy for the oppressed . The endin g of Ali: Fear Eats the Soul could b e rea d a s an attemp t t o deny the starkness of this conclusion. Emmy and Ali seem headed for reconciliation whe n h e collapses, for they hav e danced togethe r onc e again and acknowledge d thei r love . In th e hospital , Emm y plays the dutifu l wife, sitting by the bed of the stricken Ali, wailing for him to get better.19 But for this reading to be plausible, the love that Emmy has for Ali would have to be shown to be stronger than her need for recognition by her fellow Germans. This is just what the film has shown not to be true. Emmy has tacitly accepted the exchange demanded of her: that she treat Ali as inferior if sh e expect s th e privilege s du e a "true" German . Althoug h th e con sequence of her doing so is the los s of Ali, the film has not show n that, in practice, there is another option for her, a way for her to maintain her loving relationship with Ali in the face of the loss of her racial privilege. As a result, Ali doe s not view its unlikely couple as presaging a possible future fre e o f racism. The structure s of racial hierarchy are too deeply implicated in the fabric of the self to be overcome by romantic love. Without explicit politica l commitments—unlik e Jungle Fever, fo r example— AKs bleak inquir y into th e existentia l realitie s o f race privilege constitute s a devastating critiqu e o f th e eas y assumption s of film s lik e Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. A Fina l Proble m Alts analysi s of racial privilege i s certainly impressive . It i s tempting, therefore, t o generaliz e its narrativ e into a n account o f the characte r o f

AH: fear Cats tke Seal 18

?

racists as lacking the psychi c resources to withstand the pressure s exerted by the withdrawal of racial privilege. Unfortunately, the film employs narrative and representational strategie s that mak e such a generalization dif ficult to justify. To show that racial privilege i s a pervasive aspect o f the existence o f all "pure" Germans , the fil m adopt s the narrativ e strateg y o f showing tha t even a seemingly powerless an d margina l German enjoys racia l privileges that a foreigner lacks. As we have seen, to mak e this point, the film employs a narrative in which th e loss of her privilege causes Emmy to invert her way of interacting wit h Ali, accepting th e term s of exchange offere d by her fello w Germans: We will treat you as a fellow German s o long as you sho w us tha t yo u understand tha t Ali i s not. To mak e this reversa l convincing, th e fil m relie s o n a representational strateg y o f presentin g Emmy a s lacking self-confidence , a s relying o n others ' opinions rathe r than her own views. This is the reason , for example, for the col a incident early in the film; it show s that Emm y lacks a strong sel f and is thus very susceptible t o how others view her. But althoug h thi s representationa l strateg y make s th e narrativ e o f Emmy's transformation plausible-^and thu s enables th e film to sho w in stark relie f the dynamic s of racial privilege—it als o limits th e generalit y not so much of its analysis of racial privilege but of its explanation of what causes a person t o acced e t o it s pressure . Although Emm y i s shown t o lack the psychic resources that would enable her to bear her ostracism, say, by allowing her to conceive of herself as doing so in a n heroic attemp t t o overcome the racis m of German society, the film includes importan t ele ments that limit the generality of this analysis. First, Fassbinde r use s a variety of techniques that undercu t the audi ence's tendenc y t o identif y wit h Emmy . In additio n t o th e representa tional strateg y o f having her be a n older, unattractiv e woman, the fil m keeps th e audienc e psychologicall y distan t fro m he r b y not revealin g much of what she feels. As a result, audience members can see the analysis of Emmy's characte r a s so specific tha t it doe s no t explai n why racism is such a pervasive feature o f German society . They can distance th e film's analysis by believing that racism infects onl y those with defective character structure, unlike themselves. Second, the film includes narrative elements tha t sugges t that German s other tha n thos e i n Emmy' s milie u do no t shar e its racist attitudes : Th e landlord's son, Herr Gruber (Marquard Bohm) chastises Emmy's neighbors for th e way they have acted and the police ar e apologetic a s they act on th e

IS 8

All: fear Eat* the Soul

neighbors' complaints. The inclusio n of these episodes is unfortunate, fo r it suggests that people of a higher social status—owners and officials—do no t share the racist attitudes of those in Emmy's environment. Again, this limits the generality of the film's explanation of why racism persists. Thus, Fassbinder's All, despit e its remarkable achievement in portraying the dynamics of racial privilege, finds itself in some of the same binds as the other unlikel y couple films we have discussed . Its us e of certain narrativ e and representativ e strategie s to accomplis h its goal undercuts its ability to achieve it. At the same time that Alt pushes the interracial unlikely couple film to new heights, it reveals the tensions inherent in the genre.

Notes 1. Despite it s acknowledgment of the persistence of white racism, Jungle Fever has no analysis of that fact. Because the film offers Flippe r a course of action tha t it endorses , it s outlook i s actually more optimistic. Alt i s unique in its refusal t o name a correct way of dealing with the reality of racism. 2. Jungle Fever does employ nonnaturalistic techniques, albeit in a less coherent way than Alt. Stylistic flourishes, they rarely advance the film's narrative line. 3. See, for example , Judith Mayne , "Fassbinder's Alt: Fear Eats the Soul and Spectatorship," in Close Viewings: An Anthology of New Film Criticism, Peter Lehman, ed. (Tallahassee: Florid a Stat e Universit y Press, 1990) , pp . 353-369, and Kaj a Silverman , "Fassbinder an d Lacan : A Reconsideratio n o f Gaze, Loo k and Image," Camera Obscura, 19 (January 1989): pp. 54-83. 4. In U.S . terms, a German Gastarbeiter stands somewhere between a migrant worker and an illegal alien. Legally resident in Germany, they are nonetheless no t German citizen s and their children, even if born in Germany, are not entitled t o citizenship. The situatio n o f Gastarbeiter leads to man y problems, but thes e ar e not central to All. Although a t the time most guest workers were from Turkey, the film displace s thi s origi n t o tak e advantag e o f E l Hed i be n Salem , wh o i s Moroccan. Ali is actually the character's nickname. His real name parallels that of the actor: El Hedi ben Salem M'Barek Mohammed Mustapha . 5. See the essays mentioned in footnote 3, above. 6. In transcribing quotations from Ali, I generally follow the translations given in the subtitles. I occasionally change them, however, to improve their fidelity to the spoken German . 7. For an influential formulation of the issue of the purity of the German race, see Nietzsche' s Genealogy of Morals, i n Basic Writings of Nietzsche, Walte r Kaufmann, ed . and tr. (New York: Modem Library , 1968). The exten t t o which Nietzsche's philosoph y is contaminated by racism has been much debated. 8. Alts representativ e strateg y is the invers e of tha t o f Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Not only do both characters com e from th e bottom segment s of society,

AH: fear Cats tk« Seal 18

9

but the black male's sexual attractiveness is emphasized by the film. The film thus courts racis t reaction s to th e depictio n of a sensual black male on th e screen . I leave to th e sid e th e questio n o f how Fassbinder's homosexuality ma y have affected thi s strategy. For an interesting study of the film that consider s the question o f homosexuality in relatio n t o AM, see Kaja Silverman , Male Subjectivity at the Margins (Ne w York and London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 125-156. 9. Tonto, the Lone Ranger' s sidekick in the radio and, then, the TV series , is a character wh o speak s Englis h wit h somethin g lik e th e truncatio n o f All' s German, albeit without his perspicacity. 10. The differenc e betwee n All's directness and normal German i s pointed u p in the sequence in which Emm y visits her daughter an d son-in-law, wh o barely communicate despite their mastery of the rules of proper German . 11. Patricia William s ha s written eloquentl y abou t personal experience s she has ha d o f thi s sor t i n he r The Alchemy of Race and Rights (Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1991). 12. The attitude s o f her colleague s are conditioned b y more than simpl e na tional chauvinism . Emmy's firs t marriag e had alread y tainted th e purit y o f her Germanness, so the hostility that her relationship with Ali causes must be the result of a more serious transgression. 13. The differen t meaning s that thes e extende d shot s without actio n hav e in the fil m ar e discussed by Rob Burn s and Stephe n Lamb , "Socia l Realit y an d Stylization i n Fear Eats the Soul: Fassbinder's Stud y in Prejudice, ™ New German Studies, 9:3 (Autumn 1981): pp. 203 ff. 14. Judith Mayne , "Fassbinder's AH," p . 364. A similar point is made by Burns and Lamb, "Social Reality and Stylization," p. 198. 15. Burns and Lamb, "Social Reality and Stylization," p. 196. 16. Ali thu s views integration in a very diiferent light fro m Mississippi Masa/a. 17. Fassbinder's technique derives from Brecht' s conception o f an epic theater. See Brecbt on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, John WiJlett , ed. an d tr . (New York: Hill and Wang, 1964), pp. 33-42. 18. This leaves out of consideration a n important aspect of racism, viz., how it inscribes itsel f ont o th e fantas y live s of human beings. This is a dimension of racism's tenacity that lies outside the ken of this film, but that we saw investigated by Jungle Fever. 19. Critics fro m Laur a Mulvey on hav e pointed t o the similarit y between Ali and Dougla s Sirk' s All That Heaven Allows (1955). Although 1 believe that em phasis o n thes e similaritie s ha s diverted attentio n fro m th e distinctivenes s o f Fassbinder's study of racial privilege, their endings ar e similar. Fassbinder i s no t content with a n upbeat conclusion, however, adding the doctor' s verdict tha t Ali will neve r recover , fo r hi s illnes s wil l recu r ever y si x month s unti l h e dies . Fassbinder himsel f call s this a n "absolutely authenti c bit o f guestworker-reality breaking in." See his The Anarchy of the Imagination, Michael Toteberg and Le o A. Lensing, eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), p. 13.

This page intentionally left blank

Part Three

Sexual Orientation

This page intentionally left blank

to Demt Hearts B e t t i n g o n L e s b i a n Love

The films considered in preceding chapters feature couples whose unlikeliness stems primarily from thei r cross-class and interracial makeup; their heterosexual character is one respect in which these couples are likely, that is, socially appropriate. This might suggest tha t fo r the genr e as a whole, the normativ e status of heterosexuality is taken for granted—that romantic couples are necessarily composed o f a man an d a woman^a premise that would warran t the charg e o f heterosexism, the illici t privileging of heterosexuality as the only acceptable sexua l orientation. The films that I turn to in this chapter and the next— Desert Hearfs an d The Crying Game, respectively—by using the romance s of their nonheterosexua l couples t o show that the injurie s inflicte d b y heterosexism are as profound as those caused by class, race, and gender hierarchy , incidentally clear the genr e of this charge. Set i n th e confinin g atmosphere o f 1950 s Nevada , Donna Deitch' s 1986 film, Desert Hearts—the subjec t of this chapter—tells the stor y of a transgressive lov e affai r betwee n tw o women: twenty-five-year-old Ca y Riwers (Patricia Charbonneau) , who works as a change girl i n a casino, and Vivia n Bel l (Hele n Shaver) , a professo r o f Englis h literatur e a t Columbia Universit y who has come to Nevad a to get a divorce. Cay was thrown ou t o f ar t schoo l fo r he r lesbianism , an d sh e no w pursues her interest i n sculpting in her spare time, grudgingly reconciled to the safer , albeit les s fulfilling , lif e sh e lead s among Reno' s gambler s and casin o employees.1 To mee t Nevada' s residency requirement, Vivian has established hersel f o n th e ranc h ru n b y Cay' s stepmother , France s Parke r (Audra Lindley). 2 A s Vivia n tell s he r lawye r earl y i n th e film , sh e is 193

194

Desert Hettis

seeking a divorce because, at age thirty-five, she is tired o f living dishonestly: " I wan t t o b e fre e o f who I'v e been." 3 Unlik e Cay , Vivia n ha s achieved a great deal, but a t the cost of her own happiness. Her desir e to lead a more emotionally satisfying life is tempered, however, by her fear of the consequences of striking out on her own. Following what we now recognize a s the standar d logic of the unlikely couple film, Desert Hearts presents romantic union a s the solutio n t o th e problems facin g thes e two women: Each ca n encourage th e othe r t o express tha t par t o f herself sh e has denied. Al l tha t stand s i n th e wa y is Vivian's reluctance to publicly identify herself as lesbian. Most of the film concerns Cay' s resolut e campaig n to get Vivia n to acknowledg e he r les bianism and , alon g wit h it , he r nee d fo r Cay . Although th e younge r woman suffers fro m a last-minute case of the jitters when confronted with the possibilit y o f success, Vivian's internal resistanc e is the rea l obstacle this couple needs to overcome. At th e sam e time, as we have reason to expect, the stor y of these two unlikely partner s advance s a critiqu e o f sexua l hierarchy—for Desert Hearts intends the story of Cay and Vivian as a challenge to heterosexual ity's normative status, a demonstration that there is a plurality of valid expressions of human sexua l desire.4 The film's brief for this position is developed through the contrast between what Cay's and Vivian's lives can be when supported b y their love for one another and the sadness and desperation they otherwise suffer . At th e narrativ e level, then, Desert Hearts depict s ho w the existence of the "closet "—the consignmen t o f homosexuality to a space of acknowledged invisibility—exact s deep psychic costs t o thos e bot h withi n an d without it. 5 In the case of Vivian, who is living in the closet, her sacrific e of emotional fulfillment i s clearly attributable t o the dynamic s of heterosexism and homophobia; as for Cay, living out of the closet, her "deviance" has deprived her of opportunity to develop her artistic talents. But Desert Heartss significanc e a s an unlikely couple film transcends its extension of the genre to the subject of homosexuality: Hoping to reach a wide audience, yet keenly aware of the prejudices of many of its members, the film designs a set of representational strategies to deflect homophobic responses to its depiction of lesbian lovemaking. Of considerable interest , then, is the manner in which the film simultaneously presents a love story with whic h lesbia n viewers can identif y whil e developing way s to kee p straight viewers from reactin g negatively to its graphic portrayal of lesbian sex.

Desert Hearts 19

5

"If Yo u Don' t Play , Yo u Can' t Win" Unlike th e cross-clas s films—suc h a s It Happened One Night—that it s transformation narrativ e resembles, Desert Hearts involve s a quite direc t program o f seduction. Ca y realizes almost immediatel y that Vivian can provide her with the love she both desires and needs, and this sets her on a course of action designed to push Vivian to reciprocal acknowledgment of her nee d for Cay, Because of Vivians reluctance to com e out, or even to acknowledge her lesbianism to herself , Cay must proceed cautiously , en couraging Vivian' s developing self-acceptanc e without spookin g her. For Cay, however , each step is also a gamble staked on her dream. In assertin g th e necessit y of risk, Desert Hearts transform s its Nevada setting fro m a n interestin g locale , suitabl e becaus e of its contras t wit h New York, into its central metaphor for living out one's desire. This use of gambling as metaphor is made explicit in the scene in which Vivian enters the casin o where Cay works, sporting a new, red cowgir l shir t tha t Ca y has helped her pick out. The transformatio n in her appearance marks the first ste p i n Vivian' s rejectio n o f her ol d self , whose customar y tailore d suits mad e her loo k old , unattractive , and emotionall y pinched . I n th e casino, she encounters a woman (played by Donna Deitch , the film's director) who has just won a large jackpot playing the slots. As Vivian looks on, the woman tells her, "If you don't play, you can't win." In thei r differ ent ways, both Vivian and Cay have sought to control their lives by reducing their exposure to the opprobrium of the straight world. 6 In th e very next sequence, the metapho r i s extended further , a s Vivian finds herself, at the behes t o f a gambler, rolling the dic e at a craps table. Reluctantly, she has given in to his repeated entreaties. When she actually wins, her excitement and pleasure convey how costly her avoidance of risk has been. Once she is induced to overcome her inhibitions, gambling—or at least, winning—proves t o b e exhilarating. The questio n no w suggests itself: Will she be persuaded to overcome her fears of lesbianism and allow herself to risk being with Cay? The film's answer is that t o get Vivian to decide t o play this game, Cay herself ha s to place a number of calculated bets. And, as in this vignette , Vivian ultimatel y enjoy s playin g so much that sh e takes the fina l step — and before Cay is quite ready. Finally, the metaphori c claim for the necessit y of gambling can be extended self-reflexivel y t o Desert Hearts itself. Faced with th e likelihood o f homophobic reaction s t o it s depictio n o f lesbianism , the fil m slowl y

tf$

Desert Hettis

allows itself to take bigger an d bigger risks in its representation o f lesbian love. At th e sam e time that i t teE s th e stor y of these tw o gay women in the repressiv e atmosphere o f 1950s Nevada, Desert Hearts reveal s its own concern with th e repressivenes s of popular cinem a in the 1980 s and, like its characters, decides that it can only achieve its aims by making a large wager, Disarming Homophobi a Prior to 1980, ther e was, unsurprisingly, no cinematic tradition o f depicting homosexua l sexua l relationships i n a positive light. 7 Homosexualit y has been—an d continue s t o be , despite som e recen t attempt s t o chang e this8—a controversial topi c fo r mainstrea m filmmaking . Stephe n Farbe r explains: Before 1961 , the Production Code, Hollywood's censorship ordinance, forbade any hint of "sex perversion." When the code was finally revised to allow discreet treatment of homosexuality, the first movies on the subject— Advise and Consent and The Children's Hour—depicted gay s as repressed and miserably unhappy.9

In the 1970 s an d 1980s, films began to be made that focuse d on gay couples without stigmatization . Only afte r the gay liberation movemen t had secured recognition, a t least in a certain segmen t of the population, tha t a homosexual orientation was not a perversion was it possible to make popular films depicting ga y relationships a s nonpathological. Still, lesbianism was largely absent fro m mainstrea m film. Desert Hearts marks a ne w determinatio n t o brin g i t befor e popula r audiences. 10 Consequently, although financed entirely by Deltch's own efforts, the film possesses Hollywood-lik e features—fo r example , its transformatio n nar rative an d countr y musi c sound track—presumabl y to reassur e skittis h heterosexuals i n its audience. 11 At th e sam e time, the film wants t o give lesbians positive Images of lesbian romance and sexuality. As a result, Desert Hearts had t o develop narrative and representationa l strategies that would deflect, insofar as possible, homophobic response s to its depiction s o f queer couples . Th e quandar y confronting Deitc h was much like that facing makers of the interracial unlikely couple films of the late 1960s and the 1970s , who were forced to disarm negative stereotype s of blac k male sexuality—for example , Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, b y desexuallzing its male protagonist, and All: Fear Eats the Soul, by exhibit -

Desert Hearts 19

?

ing th e viciou s stupidity o f those stereotypes . A s we shal l see, Desert Hearts devises strategies of its own designed to ensure that its audience responds to the on-screen representation of lesbianism in a positive manner. One such strategy involves deploying characters who react homophobically to th e film's unlikely couple, characters whose animosit y is revealed to be based on their own unrequited desire for one of the partners, Cay. In thus tainting their motivations, the film seeks to enlist its audience's sympathy for the couple . Frances, Cay's stepmother, i s the first of two characters whom the film invests with this homophobic response . Many heterosexual unlikely couple films feature a parent of the femal e partner—usually the father—wh o presents a serious obstacle t o th e couple , bu t Frances' s oppositio n t o her stepdaughter's relationship is different fro m that of these patriarchs, for, as suggested above , i t i s motivated b y her unacknowledge d attractio n t o Cay.12 That this is the sourc e of Frances's hostility to the coupl e emerges in a scene that takes place one night when Cay encounters Vivian in the ranch house kitchen. Anxious not to awaken Frances, the two quietly search for something to eat and drink. As they do so, a deep bond develop s between them because of Cay's solicitude for the fragil e an d sufferin g Vivian : Cay alone acknowledges Vivian's courage in seeking a divorce. Their attempts at quiet are unavailing, however—Frances calls down to Cay, asking her to bring up a Coke. The olde r woman has been drinking, and when she asks to b e held, Ca y hesitates. Fo r her part , France s is critical of Cay, who is wearing only a shirt, admonishing her to dress more appropriately in fron t of Vivian. As Cay reluctantly cradles her stepmother in her arms, Frances reveals that she may be forced t o sel l the ranch . But, she assures Cay, she will buy another place where the two of them ma y live, and she will even help Cay return to art school. Many feature s o f this scene establish Frances' s repressed sexual attraction t o Cay. Cay's state of undress is discomfiting, not on Vivian's behalf, but becaus e Frances i s aroused by it; her desire to be held i s the onl y socially acceptable form he r yearning ca n take. Finally, Frances's fantasy o f the tw o of them alon e together—Did sh e simply forget the existenc e o f her son , Walter (Ale x McArthur)?—expresses the rea l nature of her im permissible wish. Frances's thwarted desir e is also the bes t explanation of her overreaction when Vivian and Cay return to th e ranc h together the mornin g afte r th e wedding o f Cay's good friend , Silve r (Andr a Akers): Frances humiliates

t?8

Desert Hettis

Vivian by throwing her off the ranch and nearly precipitates the very break with Cay she fears. Although she claims to be acting out of moral revulsion at lesbianism, it is her fear of losing Cay to Vivian that unhinges her, The sam e mechanism underlies Frances' s repeate d emphasi s on th e cross-class natur e of the couple . Earl y on, she warns Vivian to stay away from Cay—"It' s just tha t sh e doesn't hav e anything in commo n wit h a person o f your caliber"—and sh e later caution s Cay that Vivian will hurt her because Vivian's superior clas s position precludes he r havin g a committed relationshi p wit h a working-class woman. 13 The trut h i s that Frances's hostility to Vivian is attributable t o her realization tha t Vivian's class position a s an intellectual promise s Cay' s ambition s a s an artis t th e supportive environmen t France s cannot provide n o matter ho w hard she tries. Desert Heartss revelatio n tha t Frances' s homophobi c reactio n t o th e Cay-Vivian coupl e has its unacknowledged origin i n he r thwarted desir e for Ca y is meant to preempt a similar reaction b y its audienc e members. Insofar a s they accept the film's critical depiction o f Frances, they should find it difficult t o simply endorse whatever negative reactions they themselves might have to its lesbian lovers. In analogou s fashion, Darrell (Dean Butler), Cay's boss, represents het erosexual male disapproval, and for the sam e reason: As a result of a brief affair, Darrell has fallen i n love with Cay and continues to pursue her de spite her repeated protestations that she is a lesbian who stupidly allowed herself "to ge t attracte d b y his attraction " for her. Cay consistently turn s down hi s rather forcefu l attempt s t o rekindl e their romance , but Darrel l just as steadfastly refuses to accept Cay's "No." Darrell stubbornly believes he, and not Vivian, should be Cay's partner, and h e make s a number of attempts t o com e between the tw o women . After on e particularl y obnoxious effort, h e comment s to Silver , "Cay's stepping wa y out o f her rang e with tha t woman." Like Frances , Darrel l takes exception to the couple because he is attracted to Cay, and again like Frances, he expresses his frustration by denigrating the couple's cross-class makeup as well as its lesbianism. Desert Hearth representationa l strategy, then, is to us e both Darrell, a heterosexual mal e character, and Frances , a n apparentl y heterosexual fe male one, to problematize for the audienc e its own possible homophobi c reactions to the couple . Becaus e the film presents these two unsuccessfu l suitors* homophobia a s a displacement of their sexual attraction t o Cay, it expects it s audienc e to distanc e itsel f fro m thei r censoriou s reaction s t o the couple .

Desert Hearts 19

9

Corollary t o this strategy i s the inclusio n of Cay's friend Silver , whose positive attitud e towar d th e couple ca n model the respons e that the film intends for its audience . Like Darrel l an d Frances, Silve r too i s working class, but unlike them sh e is happily in love and her wedding plays an important role in the film. Silver, the film argues, can be supportive o f Cay and undisturbed by Cay's sexual orientation because she is not personall y threatened b y lesbianism. The fil m goe s out of its wa y to depic t Silver' s untroubled acceptanc e of Cay despite the difference i n their sexual orientations, eve n showin g the m takin g a bubble bath together—whil e Joe (Antony Ponzini) , Silver' s fiance, makes them dinner—wit h n o sugges tion tha t th e women' s physical intimac y is a problem fo r an y of them . Thus, by contrasting the attitud e of someone who is emotionally fulfille d to the attitude s o f two deeply unhappy characters, Desert Hearts attempt s to foreclose the possibility of a homophobic response to the couple on the part of heterosexual viewers. Desert Hearth depictio n o f DarreU's and Frances' s sexual insecurity as the caus e of their opposition t o lesbian couples could be taken for a general claim about the sources of homophobia. The film would then be seen to offe r a n analysi s of why the oppositio n t o suc h couples i s so strident, claiming that thi s vehemence provides an outlet for frustrated sexual drives. But even if it is granted that such an account is unsatisfactory—as I think it must be—the film's inclusion of these homophobic character s illustrates its awareness of the complexities of representing lesbian love in a still largely hostile society. Representing Lesbia n Lov e The focu s o f Desert Hearts s narrativ e is Cay's bold ye t cautiousl y implemented seduction/transformatio n o f Vivian, aimed at getting her to pub licly acknowledge her lesbianism. Cay's cagey strategy of progressively upping th e ant e parallel s tha t of the fil m itsel f a s it graduall y seduces its audience into accepting it s representation o f lesbian lovemaking. It, too , paves a way—in this case, for its unconventional portrayal of lesbian sex— with a series of less risky gambits. But i n th e end , like Cay , it ca n only achieve its goal through the calculated strategy of shedding its inhibition s and confronting the issue directly. To hav e a successful career , Vivian has walled hersel f off from he r own emotions, an d althoug h sh e finally has initiated divorc e proceedings ou t of her dissatisfaction with her marriage, the resultan t feelings overwhelm her. Vivia n seems unaccustomed to copin g with disruption s of her cairn,

200

Desert Hsttts

Photo 10. 1 Ca y transformin g Vivia n

professorial routines . Only slowl y will sh e allo w Ca y to fre e he r o f th e many ways she has stifled he r desires. Vivian's transformatio n is first adumbrated through th e saf e choic e o f altering her attir e an d coiffure . Whe n we first see her, her sever e appearance—her suits , her tightl y controlle d hairstyle—accentuate s he r prim ness. Moreover, she is shot in sharp focus an d in washed-out gray tones t o the sam e effect. Cay' s firs t ste p i n transformin g Vivian involves helping her buy some Western clothes . With boots, jeans, and a red Western shirt , all set off by a modish, new hairstyle allowing her long hair to flow more freely, Vivian soo n cut s a very different figur e fro m th e dron e who de scended th e trai n i n Ren o (se e Photo 10.1) . Again, the effec t i s techni cally heightened, this time by the film's use of softened lighting an d richer color. With a little help fro m he r newfoun d friend , a different Vivia n is emerging, on e expressiv e of those appetite s th e represse d academi c had for s o long kept in check. Although th e first stage of Vivian's transformation is represented in saf e terms, avoidin g an y direct depictio n o f lesbia n sex , things soo n tak e a

Sesert Hetrts

201

Photo 10.2 Lesbian passion

more carnal turn, when on the morning after Silver's wedding, Vivian and Cay go to Lake Tahoe to watch the sunrise . As the su n ascends over the mountains, Cay tells Vivian that sh e is gay. The professo r takes this op portunity to explain why they cannot be a couple but she cannot quite get the words out; then, an abrupt jump cut reveals a drenched Vivia n sitting in th e car to escap e the rain , with Ca y standing outside, banging on the window. When Vivian responds by rolling down the window, Cay begins to nuzzle her and, then, slowly the hesitant Vivian allows herself to share in a deep, passionate kiss (see Photo 10.2). Suddenly, Vivian breaks off the kiss an d shakil y rolls th e windo w bac k up. Cay reenters th e car , clearly very excited, for to he r th e kis s they have exchanged symbolize s Vivian's openness t o a lesbian relationship. Vivia n immediately retreats, however, telling Cay, "I don't know where tha t cam e from. It' s back where it be longs and I don't want to talk about it anymore." Both Cay and the film have taken a calculated risk with this next step in their respective seduction scenarios. Cay has gambled that Vivian has progressed sufficientl y fa r in understanding th e rea l natur e of he r sexualit y

202

Desert Hettis

that sh e now needs only further encouragement for their relationshi p t o be consummated. Vivian's reaction seems to bode ill for Cay's project, but we shall see that it only reinforces Cay' s determination to stake all on its success. Desert Hearts has also taken a calculated gamble in its representation of lesbian sexuality. Counting on the rapport it has established with its audience, it no w frankly depict s a n on-screen las s betwee n tw o women—by way of comparison, recall Guess Who's Coming to Dinners timid depictio n of an interracial kiss contained by a taxi's rearview mirror (see Photo 6.1) . Cay's gambl e ha s succeede d i n freein g Vivian's lesbianism fro m it s closet, even if only for a moment, but i t ha s seemingly disastrous conse quences fo r the couple . In th e scen e t o whic h I hav e alread y referred , Frances, claiming to be appalled by their disappearance and what it signi fies, summarily throws Vivian off the ranch , as if that wil l end th e rela tionship. Instead , it seal s Cay's resolv e to leav e the ranc h as well and t o embark on her—and the film's—riskiest stratagem yet. Meanwhile, Vivia n settle s int o a nondescript hotel , deeply unhappy about what has transpired: Publicly humiliated for her still-incipient les bianism, she is also miserable because she fears sh e has lost Cay. The fil m conveys he r sens e of loss through on e o f its standard , but highl y ironic , techniques: usin g an overtly heterosexual country song to convey Vivians lesbian heartbreak. On th e one hand, this strategy functions to normalize lesbianism, for the audience is asked to see that despite the differences be tween th e song' s heterosexis t assumption s and th e lesbia n reality , the emotional situation s are identical.14 O n th e othe r hand , the humorou s disparity betwee n th e song' s heterosexua l scenario an d the film's lesbian one breaks the audience' s suspensio n of disbelief, calling its attentio n t o the film's clever construction and , implicitly, to the artlessnes s of conventional romanti c narratives. Shot i n slo w motion, Vivia n showers a s Jim Reeves plaintively sings "He'll Have to Go," a song in which a jilted lover begs hi s betrayer to tell the ma n next to he r in bed to leave. Despite the inappositeness o f its content, th e lonelines s an d desperation o f the son g convey Vivian's emotions.15 Things come to a head when Cay appears at Vivian's hotel door . A reluctant Vivian lets her in, but only to explain why their encounter at Lake Tahoe di d no t reall y mea n anything . Sh e talk s o f bein g " a respecte d scholar"—as if that were adequate grounds for denying her lesbianism — and o f their kis s being " a moment's indiscretio n an d a fleetin g laps e of judgment"—words that seek to contain the implications of what has tran-

Desert Hearts

203

spired between them. Undeterred, Cay decides that circumstances require a final gamble: Behind Vivian's back an d off-screen , sh e simply disrobes and sits waiting in bed with her breasts exposed. When Vivian finally notices her , she is shocked b y Cay's directness an d tries t o get he r to leave. But Ca y will no t b e put of f and, eventually, she prevails: Vivian accept s Cay's wager and an extended scene of lovemaking follows. Cays gambl e is paralleled b y the film's risk of a n extended on-scree n depiction o f lesbian lovemaking. The chanc e it takes is that this sequence will either provok e heterosexual viewers to reac t homophobicall y or else be experience d b y them a s titillation. To forestal l either possibility , th e film's visual representation of lesbian sex departs from the classical heterosexual models that Desert Hearts ha s otherwise followed, accentuating the film's claim abou t th e difference s betwee n lesbia n and heterosexua l love. Following on a conversation photographed i n typical, and typically paced, shot/reverse sho t manner , the lovemakin g between Ca y an d Vivia n is filmed either i n close-up or at medium range with only minimal editing. The sequenc e begins with a n extended mediu m shot o f the tw o kissing. When Vivia n breathlessly react s wit h th e rathe r stoc k exclamatio n tha t she never felt this way before, Cay removes Vivian's robe and the film cuts of a close-up o f another kiss . Cay then move s her lips to Vivian's breast, followed b y Vivian's descendin g t o Cay's , i n a reversal of position. Next comes a medium shot during which they both reac h orgasm, the intensity of this moment now emphasized by rather frequent cuts . After a final kiss, the scene fades to black. Technically interestin g feature s of this scen e include prolonge d shot s with littl e cutting o r camer a movement , except fo r a n occasiona l pan. Although th e tw o lovers are quite passionate , th e scen e ha s none of th e speed an d desperation w e have come to expect of Hollywood representa tions of heterosexual intercourse. Instead, the editing conveys a sense that protracted lovemakin g is necessary to the tw o women's sexual fulfillment. In additio n to these visual techniques, the absence of music on the sound track heightens the immediacy of the sexual imagery. Instead of the build ing crescendos that normally cue the audience in to the rush of sexual passion—but also distract its attention from th e visual images—Desert Hearts insistently foregrounds its visual presentation of lesbian lovemaking. This scen e is a high-stakes gambl e indeed: To show its lesbian couple making love is to risk the possibility that it will titillate some heterosexual viewers an d alienat e others , thereby subverting th e film's effectiveness a s social critique. 16 A mor e risk-averse strategy would hav e involved som e

204

Desert Hettis

hugs, a few chaste kisses , and lot s o f dialogue emphasizin g th e couple' s grand passion, the optio n Stanle y Kramer chose for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, In keepin g with it s messag e of "If you don't play , you can't win" and it s commitmen t t o normalizin g lesbianism , Desert Hearts take s th e bolder course. The relaxe d pace of the lovemaking, the subdued camera work, and the unobtrusive editing mak e viewing this scene very different fro m watchin g two women go at it in a porno film intended for men. There are no lon g shots inviting male viewers to fantasize their presence into the scene—the two women occup y almost al l of the scree n space, and unrevealingl y a t that. On th e othe r hand , it mus t be recognize d tha t fo r lesbian audiences , this scen e offer s image s neve r befor e availabl e i n mainstrea m film . Although Desert Hearts i s not a Hollywood film, its high production values imply that i t wa s made with hope s o f commercial success and wide distribution. Nonetheless , it s darin g inclusio n o f lesbian lovemaking allows gay women to see on-screen a form o f sexuality they can—although some might not—identif y with. It certainly marks a significant expansion of what can be seen at the local multiplex on a Saturday night. More remain s before the coupl e ca n b e assure d of its future—Vivia n falters onc e again before finally accepting he r lesbianis m and Ca y has to face he r fea r o f failure i n New York—but both Ca y and he r creators have staked their limit. As the film proceeds to neatly wrap up the loose ends of its narrative, the audience's hope for this couple is that now that they have learned to play the game, their payout will be worth the gamble .

The Proble m o f Clas s In thi s chapter, I have argued that Deseri Hearts employ s several interesting and innovativ e narrative and representational strategies aime d a t de pathologizing lesbianism. And a s we have seen, its project of normalizing lesbian sexualit y is served b y some equally innovative filming. Although the us e of these techniques has not been generally recognized b y its critics, their significanc e justifies th e judgment tha t Desert Hearts i s an im portant contributio n to a posthomophobic cinema.17 On the other hand, the film's representation of class—an issue I have so far avoided—invite s a rather differen t assessment . Discussin g th e film's depiction o f homophobia throug h th e France s and Darrel l characters , I claimed that their negativ e emphasis on the couple's cross-class cornposi-

Desert Hearts 20

5

tion was a displacement of their real anxiety over its lesbianism. The film s overall portrayal s of clas s cannot be s o easily accounted for . Instead, we need t o acknowledg e tha t Desert Hearts represent s working-class figure s as generally incapable of the emotional depth i t attributes t o upper-middle-class intellectuals. For all its sensitivity to the injuries inflicted by heterosexual normativity , its representation s o f clas s differenc e ar e conten t with cliche . This condescension to the working class is present even in the film's depiction o f one of Cay's lesbia n partners, Gwen (Gwe n Welles) . Earl y in the film , whil e takin g Gwe n hom e afte r a nigh t together , Cay offer s Vivian a lift int o tow n t o mee t he r lawyer . When Ca y switche s fro m a country station playing "Be Bop a Lula" sung by Gene Vincent to a classical one playin g what Vivia n identifie s as Prokofiev's "Suit e fo r Three Horns," Gwen attacks Cay for putting on airs to attract Vivian. Vivian resolves the conflict by switching back to the country station. What is problematic her e is that eve n this lesbian is presented as shallow, unabl e to give Cay what she needs, because she is working class and therefore incapabl e o f understandin g serious art . Desert Hearts posit s a chain o f equivalences similar t o th e on e w e sa w White Palace criticize : Gwen = country musi c = working class = superficial; Vivian = classical music = upper class = deep. Although i t is easy to se e that the film invokes these equivalences to encode the alternatives available to Cay, in so doing it appear s to endors e the clas s prejudices expressed b y both Darrel l an d Frances. To supply Cay with a partner who can provide her with opportunities t o develo p he r artisti c talents , th e film's representational strateg y adopts, perhap s unreflectively , th e over t clas s bias France s an d Darrel l have expressed. Despite thi s failing , Desert Hearts convincingl y affirm s th e powe r o f love to surmount barriers of class an d sexua l orientation. I n s o doing, it both condemn s those heterosexis t norm s that continu e t o regulat e th e gender compositio n o f romantic couple s an d contributes , i n som e mea sure, to their weakening.

Notes 1. Although th e film's narrative identifie s Ca y a s a sculptor, when we see her bungalow on the ranch, she seems to be a potter. 2. Legally, Frances is not Cay's stepmother, since she was not married to Cay's father, Walter, Nevertheless, she assumes the role of mother to Cay.

206

Desert Hettis

3. All quotation s fro m Desert Hearts ar e fro m m y transcription o f the film' s soundtrack. 4. In History of Sexuality: Volume 1, An Introduction, Rober t Hurley , tr , (New York Pantheon Books , 1978), Michel Foucault argues that defining human sexuality in terms of the se x of one's partner choke is a recent development and tha t sexual liberation involve s factors more than depathologizing same-sex couples. 5. In th e Introductio n t o Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley : University o f California Press , 1990) , Ev e Kosofsk y Sedgwic k eloquentl y argue s tha t th e closet, i.e., th e need t o conceal/reveal homosexuality, is a fundamental characteristic o f Western culture . Sedgwick also emphasize s other form s o f "sexual de viance" besides homosexuality , but thes e ar e beyond the scop e of this discussion . In this connection, however, it might be worth explicitly acknowledging that Cay has been sexually active with both men and women. 6. Deitch acknowledge s th e importanc e o f this metapho r t o th e film. She claims that sh e "was really drawn to th e centra l metaphor" o f Jane Rule' s novel, Desert of the Heart (Tallahassee: Naiad Press, 1964), on which the film was based. See Michele Kort, "Independent Filmmake r Donna Deitch Controls her Whole Show," MS, Novembe r 1985, p . 66. 7. The histor y o f depictions o f homosexuality i s discussed i n Vit o Russo' s groundbreaking work, The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (New Yorfc Harper and Row, 1981 an d 1987). 8. Recent film s tha t attemp t thi s includ e Heavenly Creatures (1994) , When Night Is Falling (1995), and High Art (1998) . 9. Quoted b y Stanley Kauffmann i n a negative review of Desert Hearts title d "Harsh Contradictions," The New Republic, May 12,1986, pp. 24-26. 10. Desert Hearts i s not th e firs t popula r narrative film to sho w lesbian love making. Personal Best (1982) was, but i n a very different way . Vito Russo's criticism, in The Celluloid Closet, of Desert Hearts'^ depictio n fo r th e presenc e of "th e steamy erotic sequences between women that heterosexual men have traditionally enjoyed" (p . 278) doe s not acknowledg e th e innovativ e way in which thes e se quences are filmed. 11. The difficult y of financing the film is discussed by Jackie Stacey in her article "'If You Don't Play , You Can't Win': Desert Hearts an d the Lesbia n Romanc e Film," in Immortal, Invisible: Lesbians and the Moving Image, Tamsin Wilson, ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 92-114. 12. Jackie Stacey notes Desert Hearts'® us e of this convention of romance films. But sh e does not se e Frances's sexua l attraction t o Cay . See ""If You Don't Play ...,'" especially, p. 100 . 13. This interesting suggestio n parallel s a standard view of how upper-class men treat working-class women—fin e fo r sexual dalliances, but no t fo r committed relationships, a theme explored in White Palace,

Desert Hearts

207

14. The fil m ha s been criticize d fo r this equation. See, for example, Christine Holmlund, "When Is a Lesbian No t a Lesbian?: The Lesbia n Continuu m and the Mainstream Femm e Film," Camera Qbscum, 25-26 (1991): pp. 145-178. 15. Jackie Stacey calls attention t o th e film' s strateg y o f disruption but fail s t o see how this might give rise to feelings of discomfort in a n audience expecting a straightforward romanti c narrative . As a result, her criticis m o f the fil m fo r it s lack of emotional engagement seem s off base. See her, '"If You Don't Play . . . , '" pp. 106,109. 16. In a generally critical discussio n o f the film's politics, "Desert Hearts" The Independent, 10: 6 (Jul y 1987): p. 17 , Mandy Merc k claim s that th e film places women viewers in the typically male, voyeuristic position of "actively desiring her [the woman's ] seductio n and identifying with her seducer," Merck see s Cay's seduction of Vivian as morally problematic rather than as the bold strateg y I claim it to be. 17. My Beautiful Launderette (1985) , another fil m tha t fall s i n thi s category , represents male homosexuality as a deviant type of couple formation, but i n th e context of ethnic as well as class difference .

This page intentionally left blank

11

The Crying Gam

Loving i n Ignoranc e

The conflic t between the romantic and social perspectives tha t characterizes the unlikely couple film is predicated o n the significanc e accorde d hi erarchic orderings of class, race, gender, and sexual orientation. Fro m th e social perspective, partner s ar e unsuited t o one anothe r whe n on e comes from a dominant, the other from a subordinate, group.1 Although mos t of the films I hav e discussed ar e critical of the socia l perspective's valoriza tion o f a privileged ter m ove r a denigrated one , their criticis m doe s no t target hierarchica l ordering itself. Neil Jordan's The Crying Game (1992) sets its sights on this very issue— its goal, to destabilize suc h schemes of ordering b y showing that they do not adequately capture—indeed they deform—the reality of human experience. The film attempts t o realize its ambitions by showing how an unacceptable certitude i n the soundnes s of the set of political distinctions— foremost amon g them , British/Irish , oppressor/oppressed—tha t govern s the terrorist practice of an Irish Republican Army (IRA) cell results in nihilistic violence. The meaning s of these distinctions, th e film asserts, vary from contex t to context . The Crying Games basic narrative strategy is to use the stor y of a pair of unlikely couples—or more accurately, perhaps, of an unlikely triangle—to demonstrate tha t huma n beings ca n overcome th e socia l divisions tha t separate them t o arrive at an essential commonality. Among th e obstacles capable o f elimination ar e race; ethnicity; and , most significantl y fo r th e film, sexual orientation. The socia l perspective treats such obstacles t o romance as insuperable; the film shows us that there ar e redemptive possibilities fo r human connection mor e powerful still .

209

ttO

The Crying Stag

In wha t we might cal l its "metaphysics"—its understanding of how, at bottom, things are—these possibilities ar e related t o a further distinction , one tha t The Crying Game endorse s a s unconditionally valid, betwee n "frogs" and "scorpions." The politic s of the IRA ar e represented a s akin to the compulsion s of the scorpio n in Aesop's fable , who afte r stingin g th e frog bearin g hi m acros s a river—eve n thoug h tha t ensure s hi s ow n death—explains that he did it because it was in his nature to do so. 2 The gullible frog had been led to his death through hi s empathy with the scor pion's difficulties. This distinction between those who exploit the empathy of others an d those who empathize is the one distinction th e film claims to be resistant to destabilization, and is the one that explains the connec tion of the unlikely partners, for they are all three frogs. 3 The film's ingenious narrative destabilizes ethni c an d racial hierarchies with seemin g ease. There is one dichotomy, however—that between heterosexuality and homosexuality—tha t seem s resistant: Eve n i f we accept the ide a tha t sexua l orientation i s a social construction, there seem s no easy way to challenge one's understanding of one's own sexual orientation . But this is just what the narrative of The Crying Game proposes in its story of the relationshi p o f an IRA terrorist , Fergu s Hennessy (Stephen Rea) , to tw o blac k men : Jody (Fores t Whitaker) , th e Britis h soldie r take n hostage, and Dil (Jaye Davidson), a transvestite who was Jody's lover.4 Destabilizing Sexualit y To understand how The Crying Game proceeds, we need to recall how th e unlikely couple film deploys its narrative of transgressive romance for purposes of social critique. A s we have seen time after time , the genre' s basic narrative strategy is to us e its audience's empathy for its subject couple to subvert the hold of certain dominant norms, and this entails that the trans gressive lovers be sufficiently appealing to motivate outrage toward the society that would proscribe their romance. What the films need, then, are representational strategie s tha t allo w thei r audience s t o for m positiv e attachments to their unlikely couples (or at least, to one of the partners) . Again, a s I hav e repeatedly remarked , th e pervasiv e hold o f negativ e stereotypes presents a problem fo r films seeking to counter invidiou s dis tinctions o f class, race, gender, an d sexua l orientation. Because some— perhaps many—i n thei r audience s will be captive s of suc h stereotypes , films that targe t thes e distinction s mus t set about defusin g anticipate d negative viewer response.

The Crying Stag

211

To furthe r it s agend a o f destabilizing th e "hetero/homo " distinction , The Crying Game chooses th e radica l course of problematizing those as sumptions abou t sexual desire that underlie that distinction . Rathe r tha n attempting t o minimize homophobic response s by sanitizing its depiction of homosexuality, the fil m limit s it s audience' s knowledg e t o allo w th e crucial revelation of Oil's sex to undermine viewers' faith in their own sexual certainties, The Crying Game, then, challenges its audience's faith in the homo/hetero distinction , les s by trying to valoriz e a form o f "deviant" sexuality — the strateg y I attribute d t o Desert Hearts—than b y showing that huma n sexuality is too complex and fluid to be neatly captured by these two, hierarchized categories—indeed, that human sexuality cannot be understoo d in the terms normally taken to define it, Owing largel y to th e wor k o f feminist theorists, the sex-gende r dis tinction ha s become centra l t o curren t discussions o f huma n sexuality . Adopting their practice, I use the term "sex" here to refer to that divisio n of the species into male and female based on certain physical characteristics. Althoug h recen t researc h indicates tha t th e huma n species i s no t sexually dimorphic, tha t ther e ar e other possibilitie s fo r th e distributio n of sexua l characteristics tha n thos e represente d b y th e standar d tw o sexes, our understandin g o f human sexuality is still generally predicate d on th e ide a that th e presenc e of either a penis or a vagina is determina tive.5 The ter m "gender" is then be reserved for distinctions mad e on th e basis o f certai n practices , clearl y socially determined—such a s wearing or no t wearin g dresse s an d makeup—constitutiv e o f femininit y and masculinity. Unless it is assumed that gender is exhaustively determined by biological sex, discriminating sex from gende r complicate s the assumptio n tha t there ar e just tw o sexua l orientations—hetero - an d homosexuality. 6 Particularly confoundin g are transvestites, o r cross-dressers , biologica l males who enac t femininity or biological female s wh o enac t masculinity. Although transvestite s can be either hetero- o r homosexual, it is the exis tence o f homosexual transvestites tha t destabilize s a binarized under standing of sexual orientation—since, for example, a male transvestite can be the desired sexual object of a homosexual man. One ai m of The Crying Game is to show that the hetero/hom o dichotom y does no t d o justice t o those vagarie s of human sexual desire t o whic h th e existenc e o f trans vestism attests. 7 Thus, central to the films strategy of destabilization is its claim that in the realm of human sexuality, things are not as immutable as

2t2

The Crying Stag

our categorie s mak e it seem . Sex, gender, and sexualit y are more various and shifting than the language we use to conceptualize their natures, Other socia l hierarchie s targeted b y The Crying Game are destabilize d more conventionally, in a succession of episodes depicting th e developin g friendship betwee n Fergus an d Jody. But with sexuality , a more comple x narrative strategy seems required to convince viewers that their sexual desire is less simple than they may have thought. Thus, the film leads its predominantly straigh t audienc e into actually sharing Fergus' s experience of destabilization. A Strateg y o f Deceptio n The Crying Games narrative strategy involves deceiving it s viewers about the significanc e of what is transpiring on-screen . I n thi s way , the fil m hopes t o get mal e viewers to se e a male transvestite as sexually desirable and femal e viewer s to identif y wit h her , at once undermining both male and femal e viewers ' assumptions about sexuality and securin g the film's metaphysical views. Of course , since mos t viewer s would deny that the y could even have such experiences, they must be tricked into them . It i s generally tru e tha t one' s experienc e o f a film depends heavil y on one's social status and cultural attitudes. With The Crying Game, however, there is an additional factor that affect s it s reception: whether viewers recognize that Dil is part of the transvestite bar scene in London. Those who know o r suspec t tha t Di l i s a gay transvestite wil l no t experienc e The Crying Game as intended.8 That is, since they will not be ignorant in th e specific way the film requires, the revelation at its center will not come as a surprise conveyin g a n importan t truth . So , in what follows , I assum e a naive viewer whose point of view the film's narrative strategy privileges.9 Thus, The Crying Game attempt s t o plac e it s viewers in a n epistemi c position i n which they , like Fergus , ar e deceived abou t Dil' s sex . This strategy makes The Crying Game unique among the unlikely couple films I have discussed , for with th e others , th e audienc e alway s possesses more knowledge than do the characters. Often, this is true if for no other reason than tha t th e audienc e is aware before the partner s ar e that th e partner s really do belong together . The disjunctio n between the audience's knowledge and that of the characters is one source of tension in these films' narratives. For example, if we watch It Happened One Night with som e suspense, it is because we wonder whether, or at least how, the characters will be brought t o acknowledge the love we know they really share.

The Crying 8m

213

The Crying Game intend s it s (naive ) viewers to assume , along wit h Fergus, that th e person with whom he is falling in love is biologically fe male, that Oil' s enacted gende r identit y is congruent with he r biologica l sex. Once that bait is taken, the audience's sense that if this coupl e is unlikely, it is because Fergus is at least partially responsible for the deat h of Jody, Oil's forme r partner , is mistaken. ( I ignore , fo r the moment , ho w Oil's race affects th e couple's unlikeliness.) Caught u p in the dynamics of Fergus's developin g feeling s for Oil an d ho w those feeling s relate t o hi s guilt ove r Jody's death , th e viewe r tends t o mis s cues that sugges t tha t there is more (or at least, "Other") to Oil than meets the eye. 10 This technique i s notably associate d with th e traditio n o f film noir, a genre i n which th e viewer characteristically share s an epistemic position of ignorance, if not one of error, with that character responsible for uncovering the truth. 11 Films in which the "punch" comes fro m th e revelatio n that the perpetrator is not the character the audience has been induced to suspect must mislead.12 A straightforwar d example of The Crying Games us e of this narrative strategy is the opening, country fair sequence that culminates in Jody's abduction. We se e a white woman, Jude (Miranda Richardson), and a black man, Jody, on their way to what appears will be a casual sexual encounter. When Jody trie s t o kis s her , Jude suggest s the y mov e awa y fro m th e crowded fai r t o a more secluded spot. No sooner ar e they alone, however, than a gunman—Fergus—suddenly appears to attac k Jody and fre e Jude from hi s embrace. What seeme d a simple pickup turns out t o be a carefully staged IRA hostage taking. The audienc e has been in virtually the sam e epistemic position a s Jody, the character who seems to be propelling the narrative. Neither h e nor we initially suspect that more is happening than appears on the surface. 13 But the film pulls the epistemi c rug out fro m unde r his, an d our, feet b y revealing a level of significanc e of which he , an d we , hav e bee n unaware. Once w e understand that w e hav e witnessed a political kidnapping , we retrospectively reinterpre t wha t we hav e seen: Jude's attractio n t o thi s black man was feigned—she later reveals herself to have been repulsed by his touch—in order to lure him into a trap. From th e film's opening moments , then, th e audience experiences surprise and shock. Had viewers' knowledge not been thus limited, had they known al l along the y were witnessing a ruse in ai d of a hostage taking , they migh t hav e been repulse d by Fergus's violence, or the y migh t have enjoyed seein g the IRA execut e an action, but the y would no t hav e been

2t4

The Crying Stag

surprised by any of it. Instead, the audienc e is caught up in what appears to be an interracial liaison only to be shocked by the discover y of what is actually transpiring, Destabilizing Differenc e In the next, hostage sequence of the film, the development of a friendship between Jody and Fergus initiates the film's assault on received social hierarchies. But by placing Fergus's relationship with Jody in the context of an unfolding terrorist plot, the intense hostage drama serves to direct the audience's focus elsewhere. As a result, intimations of homoeroticism go unremarked. Nonetheless, becaus e i t ha s witnessed Fergus' s pleasur e i n a male friendship tha t transgresse s "normal" bounds, the audienc e is being subtly prepared for the possibility of a homosexual relationship . From the beginning of Jody's captivity, Fergus manifests both empathy for an d curiosity about him. When Jody is first brought to the cell's hideout, Fergus orders Jude to give him tea . Unlike the othe r terrorists, wh o understand the need to see Jody as no more than a bargaining chip, Fergus sees him a s a human being, to be treate d a s humanely as possible i n th e circumstances. It is this nascent sympathy that Jody sets out to cultivate to save his own life . As Fergu s watches ove r Jody, the relationshi p between th e tw o me n grows. First, Fergus gets permission from th e cell's leader, Peter Maguirre (Adrian Dunbar) , t o gran t Jody's reques t t o remov e the uncomfortable burlap hood h e has been force d t o wear. Of course, the hood i s intended to concea l the terrorists ' identitie s shoul d the y actuall y succeed i n exchanging Jody for an IRA leade r held by the British . But sinc e Jody has already seen both Jude and Fergus, this precaution make s little sense: As Jody jokes to Fergus, there is no point t o keeping the hoo d on him since he had already seen, "You're the handsom e one."14 Although thi s remark clearly has homoerotic overtones, th e viewe r tends to hea r it simpl y as a joke intende d t o foste r thei r growin g intimacy . When Fergu s finally removes th e hood , Jody wisecrack s that ther e wa s only one thin g h e was mistaken about : "You're n o pin-up " (Jordan, Reader, p . 187) . Fergu s a s pinup, that is, as an object of Jody's sexual desire, is a surprising idea and a possible tip-of f to Jody's sexual orientation.15 But again, in the context of the hostag e narrative , th e naiv e viewer hears i t a s only anothe r joke , a throwaway remark. The sequenc e comes closer t o revealing Jody's sexua l orientation whe n he shows Fergus a picture of Dil. Jody has been reflecting on the irony of

The Crying Stag t t

S

having been trapped b y a female, although neithe r Fergus nor the viewer is aware of precisely where the iron y lies. He tell s Fergu s that he believes he will be killed because it is not in the terrorists' nature to let him go. The irony of his situation, he now explains, is that h e wound up a s a hostage because he fell for Jude s seduction routin e even though h e was not really attracted t o her: "I didn't eve n fancy her . . . She's no t my type" (Jordan , Reader, p. 189). B y way of explanation, he ask s Fergus to tak e his wallet and look at a photograph. Afte r glancin g at a snapshot of Jody in a cricketer's outfit, Fergus finds a picture of him with what appears to be an at tractive blac k woman. In th e ensuin g dialogue, th e tw o me n shar e an erotic fantasy : FERGUS: She'd be anyone's type. JODY: Don't think of it, fucker . FERGUS: Why not? JODY: She's mine. Anyway, she wouldn't suit you . . . FERGUS: Sh e your wife? JODY: Suppose you could say that. (Jordan, Reader, p. 190 ) The naiv e viewer watching this exchange is, like Fergus, ignorant of Jody's sexual orientation an d Dil's sex. Two men ar e apparently engaged i n a familiar pattern, establishing, but controlling, their affection fo r one another through thei r mutua l attraction t o a woman both se e as desirable. I t i s only kter, once Dil's sex has been revealed, that the viewer can understand exactly what Jody meant by warning Fergus off. The questio n of Jody's rac e will hav e been o n th e viewer' s min d for some time, but becomes explicit in the narrative only when Jude expresses her feeling s o f repulsion at being touche d b y this blac k man. Indeed, her crudely racist reaction taints the entire IRA tea m and is part of the film's strategy o f underminin g sympathy fo r thei r politica l stance . A s Jod y points out , in Northern Ireland—"the one place in the world where they call you nigge r to your face" (Jordan, Reader, p. 191)—th e use of a black man t o represen t Britis h power is particularly inappropriate. Despite hi s being a soldier enforcin g British colonia l rul e in Norther n Ireland , one would expect the IRA t o treat a black male from Antigu a as a fellow victim of British colonialism , rather than a s a surrogate for the Crown. 16 In kidnapping a black ex-colonial, th e terrorist s sho w themselves prisoners of inflexibl e political categorie s tha t canno t accommodat e real-worl d complexities, i n thi s cas e th e complexitie s Jody' s hybri d identit y represents.17

2t4

The Crying Stag

The conversatio n between Jody and Fergus that mos t explicitly points up the problematic nature of reductive distinctions concerns the respective merits o f cricket an d hurling , sport s associate d wit h thei r differen t na tionalities: I n Antigua—Jody s birthplace—"cricket's a black man's game," he tells Fergus , not th e gam e of the Englis h uppe r class (Jordan, Reader, p. 191). Although th e context of this interchange is distant from th e film's political concerns , it makes the relevant point: The terrorist s accept an inflexible set of categories tha t ignore the shifting meanings things acquire. But as Jody suggests, meanings depend on context. The highl y symboli c scen e in which th e allowabl e limit s o f Jody and Fergus's heterosexual friendship are transgressed—when Fergu s is force d to help Jody urinate—occurs in such a way as to cause the viewer to miss its significance . Fergus actuall y removes Jody's peni s fro m hi s pants be cause Jody cannot do so since he is handcuffed. When Fergus is reluctant to touch Jody's penis again to put it back, Jody delivers a line that will later prove highl y ironic , "It's onl y a piece o f meat," and jokes tha t i t ha s n o major communicable diseases (Jordan, Reader, p. 193) . The homoeroti c overtones t o thi s scen e are clear, for Fergu s has now, probably fo r th e firs t tim e i n hi s life , handle d anothe r man' s penis . Fergus's squeamishness might be amusing, but thi s act marks how far the intimacy between thes e tw o me n ha s developed. Fergu s i s willing t o d o things tha t disgust or embarrass him to spare Jody pain or humiliation, a willingness tha t distinguishes hi m from hi s fellow terrorists. This scene exemplifies th e natur e of the boundarie s that establis h th e sorts of intimacies appropriate between heterosexua l males. The develop ing friendshi p between Fergu s an d Jody demonstrate s tha t unlik e his comrades, Fergu s i s neithe r racis t no r ideologicall y rigid : Indeed , hi s growing rapport with Jody causes him t o waver in his political commit ments. Nonetheless, Fergus' s reluctance t o touc h Jody's peni s reflect s hi s masculine anxiety . Since Jody clearl y needs Fergu s t o remov e his penis from hi s pants and then replace it in them, and since Fergus has come to befriend him , why does this act cause Fergus such discomfort? The film suggests tha t becaus e of their homophobia , heterosexua l male s operate under certai n taboos , observin g th e rigi d boundar y that confirm s thei r identity as masculine and heterosexual. It is not, of course, that homosex uals usuall y behave as Fergus doe s i n thi s scene , but tha t certai n bod y parts acquire an aura of taboo for other males because they are associated with homosexua l practices . Mutuall y objectifyin g women , talkin g sports—these are appropriate mal e things to do; touching anothe r man's penis simply is not.

The Crying Stag

217

True t o form , however, the film once again deflect s ou r attentio n fro m the homoeroti c implications of this scene as Jody and Fergus laugh about the incident . When Jody empathize s wit h Fergus' s discomfort , Fergu s dryly replies, "Th e pleasur e was all mine" (Jordan, Reader, p. 194), S o what if Jody needed help urinating? No need to make a fuss abou t it! But b y this time , Pete r ha s become concerne d abou t th e relationshi p that ha s developed betwee n Fergus and Jody, and he orders Fergus to re place the noxiou s hood. When Fergus reluctantly obeys, Jody once again commiserates with him ; "Y'see there's tw o kind s of people. Those who give and those who take" (Jordan, Reader, p, 196). I t i s at this poin t tha t Jody—only his mouth no w exposed—recounts Aesop's fabl e o f the scor pion and the frog . Instead o f all the difference s tha t societ y takes to be significant—class , race, ethnicity, sex, gender, and s o forth—the fabl e present s the on e dis tinction th e film treats as unqualifiedly valid, Jody interprets thi s distinc tion betwee n frog s an d scorpion s a s one betwee n thos e wh o giv e an d those who take, but a more revealing characterization o f the differenc e i s as tha t betwee n thos e wh o empathiz e wit h th e situatio n o f others an d those wh o exploit other s becaus e they do not . The fro g i n the fabl e die s because it responds t o the scorpion' s nee d an d tries t o help it . The scor pion attribute s it s vicious, and ultimately self-destructive, behavio r to its unchangeable nature, but its real difference fro m it s benefactor is that it is unable to care about the creature who cares about it. The Crying Game argues that social divisions such as class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation ca n be transcended by empathetic understanding. The onl y difference tha t canno t b e s o overcome, according t o th e film, is th e presence/absenc e o f this fundamenta l capacity . Again, th e film's strategy i s to demonstrat e th e instabilit y of al l these other differ ences—while depictin g Fergus' s gradua l acceptance o f hi s ow n froglik e nature. It i s worth notin g th e oddity of the film's metaphysics. Few would accept a distinction between the empathetic and the exploitative a s both irreducible an d stable, let alone endorse a critique o f terrorism based on it . Yet i n th e dizzyin g worl d o f The Crying Game, i t provide s th e audienc e with a comforting sense of certainty. As if to illustrate the lesson of the fable, Jude now reappears, adjusts th e hood to cover Jody's mouth, then cruelly smashes him across the face with her gun . When sh e leaves and Fergu s exposes Jody's blood y mouth , th e doomed hostag e comments , "Women ar e trouble. . .. Dil wasn't trouble. No troubl e a t all, " onc e agai n hintin g a t Dil' s "real " natur e (Jordan ,

ttt

The Crying 8m

Reader, 199) , Jody then ask s Fergus to find Dil afte r his , Jody's, death t o see if she is all right . The tes t of Fergus's natur e will be hi s willingness t o execut e Jody. But true to form, the film does not resolve this issue. When Fergus is ordered to kill him, Jody makes a run for it, thinking that Fergus will not shoot him in the back. As Fergus chases him, Jody runs out onto a road and, in another horrific scene , is run ove r by an armored vehicle. The Britis h have figured out where Jody was being hel d an d have mounted a n all-out assaul t that seems aimed more at killing the IRA terrorists than at freeing their captive. The audienc e is barely allowed time to reflec t on Jody's horrible deat h and the Brits * display of force. Again, the effec t o f the actio n narrativ e is to deflect ou r attentio n fro m wha t we have seen develop between Fergu s and Jody: a homoerotic bond roote d i n a n empathy that transcends th e social differences between them .

Unveiling Difference In many ways, the dramatic as well as the conceptual climax of the film, although not its narrative closure, occurs when Fergus discovers Oil's biological sex. This revelation comes durin g the sequenc e i n Londo n i n which Fergus has found Dil and fallen in love with her. The naiv e viewer has continued to share the limitations o f Fergus's epistemic position an d so is just as shocked b y the revelatio n of Oil's sex as Fergus is, having experienced, along with him , Dil's stunning enactment of femininity (se e Photo 11,1). From the point of view of its sexual politics, this is the goal of The Crying Games narrativ e strategy o f deception, for , a s I hav e already suggested, it aims at destabilizing th e audience's assumptions about sexuality. After th e disastrou s outcome to th e hostag e taking , Fergus has bolted to Londo n an d assume d a new identity. Working a t a construction sit e overlooking a cricket field, which give s him ampl e opportunity t o thin k about Jody, to honor his promise to seek out Dil, Fergus finds the hair salon in which sh e works and lets her cut his hair. He the n follows her t o the Metro , the ba r tha t sh e and Jody frequente d together. Afte r a brie f conversation mediate d by Col (Ji m Broadbent) , th e bartender , the y are interrupted b y Dave (Ralp h Brown) , who assault s Dil an d force s he r t o leave the bar with him. Fergus follows them to Dil's apartment , where he sees their shadows on the shades as they appear to have sex. When Fergus returns home, he dreams of Jody bowling in his cricket whites. Drawn bac k to the Metr o sometime later, Col greet s hi m a s a regular and is about to reveal Dil's "secret" to him when he is interrupted b y Dil

The Crying 6tm»

tt9

Photo It.I Di ! a s the objec t o f mal e desir e

herself, who performs a torchy lip-synch version of the song "The Cryin g Game," during which Fergus is transfixed by her image. Subsequently, as Dil and Fergus talk, they are once again interrupted by Dave. And onc e again , Dil leave s wit h him , but thi s time , when Dav e pauses in an alley to hit her, Fergus intervenes and beats Dave up, thereby taking on the role of Dil's protector. In part, Fergus assumes this role out of guilt. His feelin g of responsibility for Dil grow s stronger as he realizes that she had entered into a masochistic relationship with Dave after Jody's death.18 But h e also is attracted t o her , an attraction alway s mediate d by his awareness ofJody as her former partner. The revelatio n o f Dil's se x comes durin g a scene in whic h Di l an d Fergus prepar e t o mak e love. Di l ha d controlle d thei r firs t sexua l encounter by diverting Fergus's hand as it moved to her crotch and fellatin g him. During tha t scene , the film emphasized the complexit y of Fergus' s desire for Dil: He register s Jody's photograph a s she descends to his penis and hi s orgas m follow s a fantas y i n whic h Jod y bowl s a cricke t ball . Having corne , Fergus questions Di l abou t Jody an d her feelings for him, concerned that her actions were a betrayal of that relationship . This suggests that Fergus's interest in Dil is conditioned b y his feelings about Jody. His guilt over Jody's death is an obvious reason for his concern about her . But hi s sexua l interest i n Dil—th e objec t of Jody's desire — serves to maintain a homoerotic connection to the dead man. Their second sexua l encounter prove s that Fergus will not get what he bargained for . He an d Di l hav e just returned t o he r apartment fro m th e Metro, where he told her that he would look after her . Dil changes into a red negligee i n her bathroom, and a s Fergus removes it, the camer a pans

220

The Crying 6tm»

Pbte (1. 2 Firpt's "disewsry "

from her fac e dow n her body: a shot take n from hi s point of view exposing firs t a flat chest an d the n a penis, both o f which profoundl y shock Fergus and, along with him, the naive viewer (see Photo 11.2). Disgusted, Fergus hits Dil as she tries to reach out to him and then runs to the bath room t o vomi t repeatedly , a scene we witness i n a long shot taken fro m Dil's point o f view (see Photo 11.3). A dejected Dil insist s that she was not purposely misleading him, but thought he "knew." This scene became the mos t famou s on e in the film and contains th e revelation o f the "secret " that th e reviewer s both obsessivel y allude d t o and compliantly kept,19 It is also the pivot about which the films narrative turns. Once Fergu s learns that Dil is sexed male, that th e woman he has been coming to love and with whom he has had a sexual encounter is really biologically male, his homophobic anxiet y causes him quite literally to retch. Whatever issue s might have been raise d by Dil's rac e and her rela tionship with Jody are simply overwhelmed by this discovery. Eschewing Desert Hearts^ strateg y o f renderin g homosexual desire as wholesome, The Crying Game intends nothing les s than the subversio n of the hetero/hom o distinction itself . As the audienc e shares Fergus's epis temic position, it, like Fergus, accepts Dil as a suitable object of male (hetero) sexua l desire. But with tha t disturbing glimps e o f Dil's penis , naive viewers hav e been confronte d with a male enacting a sexually attractive woman, one whose performance of fellatio they may have found erotic . I refer t o thi s a s a destabilizing experienc e for it challenges th e taken-for granted congruence of biological sex and social gender that lies at the ba -

The Crying 6tm»

221

Pbte (1. 3 Fergus' s iwnIsien/Wt iss|»ir

sis of the assume d binarism o f sexual orientation. Especially for heterosexual males, who generally refuse t o admit the possibilit y of being sexually attracted t o othe r males , this revelatio n can be deeply troubling, for the film confronts the m with just that "appalling" possibility. For heterosexual females, the shock may be as great, for they have seen a male, not a female lik e themselves, as an object of male desire. In eithe r case, for th e naive viewer, the adequacy of the framewor k through which he or she has conceived sexuality has been placed in question. Male viewer s are confronted with th e furthe r possibilit y tha t a t least certain elements of a form o f male homosexuality are not al l that foreign to th e structur e of their ow n sexual desire, for now they too have experienced, albeit in ignorance, desire for a male transvestite. By getting these naive—homophobic?—viewers to realize that they themselves can be subject t o th e ver y desires an d feeling s tha t structur e certain homosexual practices, The Crying Game argues that those desires are perverse only if all desire is.20 In a brief discussion of the film, Marjorie Garber confirms this analysis. After reportin g tha t man y men of her acquaintance insisted tha t a body double had been used in the revelation scene, Garber interprets this "disavowal" in th e following terms: "They ha d com e t o desir e tha t which , once they 'knew' what it was, they 'knew' they didn't desir e it." 21 Rathe r than acknowledg e that the y were sexually aroused by a male, these me n denied the evidence of their senses. The destabilizin g nature of the revelation nee d no t b e disavowe d or denied , but a s I hav e been arguing , can change one's understanding of one's own sexual desire.

The Crying Game

222

In pushin g for such a reassessment, The Crying Game exposes ho w ou r conscious desires are structured by socially constituted assumption s about sexual propriety. Onl y becaus e Fergus (an d th e naiv e viewer) sees Dil as an appropriat e objec t o f male desire d o hi s (and , possibly, their ) sexua l feelings fo r he r develop . The revelatio n o f her rea l se x causes Fergus's revulsion, hi s ow n desire n o longe r consisten t wit h hi s view of what i s acceptable. Onl y i n ignoranc e o f Dil's "nature " can Fergu s lov e he r un problematically. In thi s scene , The Crying Game moves beyond standard representation s of desire and its regulation accordin g t o categories o f social acceptability. In man y unlikely couple narratives , th e differenc e tha t disqualifie s ro mance is apparent t o both th e two partners an d the audience . In others , that differenc e ma y be conceale d fro m on e o f the partners . Bu t onl y in The Crying Game are the grounds of unlikeliness concealed from one partner, who m we follow, as well as the audience , allowing both to have experiences that being folly knowledgeable would preclude. In depicting a love the transgressive character of which eludes the very categories with which we attempt t o understand it, The Crying Game radically extends the critical potential o f the unlikely couple film.

Overcoming Difference The revelatio n o f Dil's se x precipitates a crisis for The Crying Games un likely couple, for Fergus's heterosexuality should preclude romance with a male transvestite. The film cannot leave things this way, however, without denying it s ow n metaphysica l view . Fergus' s relationshi p wit h Jod y showed hi m tha t empath y fo r anothe r coul d transcen d som e difference s taken to be significant—ethnicity and race; his relationship with Dil challenges him to extend hi s empathy across a divide tha t initially seems un bridgeable. But to sustain its view that the only insurmountable differenc e is that between scorpions an d frogs, Fergus must find the capacity to love across that divide as well. And indeed, in the final sequences of the film, Dil and Fergus move toward a kind o f love with which bot h ca n b e a t leas t partially satisfied . Although this is neither th e traditiona l upbea t endin g o f many unlikely couple films nor a clearly tragic one, it doe s support th e film's claim tha t empathy can overcome the socially determined categories that both struc ture an d contai n th e possibilitie s o f huma n connection , sexua l an d otherwise.

The Crying Game 22

3

But a s we have learned to expect fro m thi s film, the narrativ e does no t develop i n straightforward linear fashion. Fo r as Dil an d Fergus attemp t to reconstitute thei r relationship , th e IRA is determined tha t Fergu s will carry out a political assassination as penance for his desertion. Onc e again , The Crying Game deflects our attentio n fro m it s sexua l politics by recontextualizing its unlikely couple story in the ongoing actio n narrative. Miraculously, Jude and Peter, too, hav e escaped the destruction of their hideout an d are angry with Fergus for having "fucked up " (Jordan, Reader, p. 240). Instea d o f simply killing him , however, they decide t o sen d him on a suicide mission , with th e threa t t o har m Dil i f he doe s no t agree . Fergus's reaction shows how far he has evolved, for his main concern now is t o kee p Dil—an innocen t lik e Jody—from har m a t th e hand s o f th e IRA. Being Dil's protector, willing to sacrific e hi s life fo r hers, is his final acknowledgment that this failed scorpio n has accepted hi s frog nature . One o f the more intriguing plot twists then follows, as Fergus disguises Dil a s a man(!), thus aligning he r se x and he r gender. To re-mar k her as masculine, he returns to the beauty salon where she works and proceeds to give her a short haircut , thus replaying their initia l encounter i n inverted form. He the n takes Dil back to her apartment where he has her dress in Jody's cricket outfit. Whereas Fergus has himself come to occupy Jody's place as Dil's "gentle man," Dil ha s now been physically transformed into a parody of Jody, a parody for Dil no w looks like a woman in drag.22 There is more to he r feminine gender identit y tha n simpl y he r lon g hair , makeup , an d woman's clothing . Fergus's effort s t o transfor m Dil's gende r simpl y do not succeed, for her way of holding hersel f and her body language are enactments of a feminine identity. Her gender, even granting its social constitution, is mor e tha n ski n deep , residin g i n a body tha t resist s bein g camouflaged.23 It i s to this transforme d Dil, who is in a euphoric state , havin g taken a lot o f drugs t o comba t a n unspecifie d blood disease—AID S lurking?— that Fergu s i s able to confid e hi s previou s identity a s a terrorist an d hi s role i n Jody's death . Becaus e she is drunk an d ha s take n mood-alterin g drugs, at this tim e Dil is unable to full y react to Fergus's revelations. Th e film then use s parallel editing to intercut tw o narrative lines. In the first, on the morning after Fergus' s confession, Dil reacts by tying Fergus to the bed an d threatenin g hi m wit h hi s own gun a s he struggle s t o fre e him self—if h e misses his rendezvous with Peter an d Jude, Di l will be in dan ger. Interspersed wit h thi s sequenc e are shots o f Jude dressing , this time

224

The Crying Stag

preparing to play the femm e fatale . At th e en d o f this doubl e sequence , the two "women" in Fergus's life ar e both arme d and angry. The assassinatio n plot is resolved first: Peter realize s that Fergu s is not going t o sho w u p o n time , takes hi s place , and i s kille d b y his victim's bodyguard. When Jude flees the scene , we know that sh e wiE come afte r Fergus for yet another fuckup. Meanwhile , Di l still holds Fergu s captive. Threatening him , sh e demand s tha t h e declar e hi s lov e fo r her . Interestingly, Fergus' s coerced declaratio n seem s genuine : Although Di l has forced hi m into it, his affirmation i s sincere. Once Fergu s assures the doubtfu l Di l that he will never leave her, Jude appears, gun in hand, ready to kill Fergus for having once again let down the cause. Instinctively, Dil fires to protect Fergus and, as she continues to shoot Jude, she realizes that this is the woman who used "her tits and that cute little ass " to tra p Jody (Jordan , Reader, p , 265). The scen e ends as Fergus (whom Dil had earlier untied) stops the stunned Dil from turnin g her gun on herself, hustles her out of the apartment , and replaces her fingerprints o n th e gun with his own. The polic e arriv e and we realize tha t Fergus will give himself up as Jude's murderer. As man y critics hav e pointe d out , this sequenc e epitomizes th e film's strategy of pitting it s one biological woman against a transvestite, and t o the advantage of the latter.24 Indeed, Jude is the most poisonous character in th e entir e film: It i s as if transvestites—feminine males—ca n b e accorded sympatheti c treatment onl y i f biological female s ar e represented negatively. To reject society' s claim that transvestites ar e not rea l women, the film endorses Jody's earlier characterization o f female women as trouble. The film seems able to accord males a space in which gender assumptions ca n b e destabilize d onl y b y vilifying biologica l females . Fro m th e point o f view of Fergus's evolution , however , this sequenc e shows how thoroughly he has changed: Having made a clear choice to protect hi s unlikely partner, he betrays his former allies , selflessl y takin g on Dil' s pun ishment, perhaps to assuage his guilt.

The Polities of Redemption The fina l scen e of the fil m i s a sort o f coda tha t inverts th e powerfu l guard-prisoner image of its hostage sequence. Fergus, the former IRA ter rorist, is now a prisoner i n a British jail. Sittin g opposit e hi m i s Dil, fo r whose crim e h e ha s bee n punished. 25 Dil , wh o appear s dresse d a s a woman once again and who now plays the devoted wife, seems to have re-

The Crying Game

225

gained her former self-assurance . When she asks Fergus why he has chosen to tak e the ra p for her, he responds, "As the ma n said, it's in my na ture," and h e then retell s th e fabl e o f the scorpio n an d the fro g (Jordan , Reader, p. 267). As Fergus recites the tale , the camera does a long reverse tracking shot t o the rea r of the visiting room, always keeping Fergus and Dil in sight. Fergus's recitation i s accompanied by Lyle Lovett's rendition of Tammy Wynette's hit song , "Stand B y Your Man," a song and performance that ar e multiply ironic i n this context, parodyin g yet celebrating Oil's allegiance to Fergus and providing a feeling of emotional closure for the audience. The Crying Game i s a n unusua l unlikely couple film , just a s Dil an d Fergus ar e an unusual unlikely couple a t th e film's end. First, the film is not simply a romance, but a hybrid narrative that unfolds it s transformation narrative in the context of an action film. Throughout, that narrative repeatedly drives the romantic story into the background. In addition, unusually fo r a n unlikel y couple film , ther e i s n o singl e coupl e that full y dominates th e narrative . Thus, Jody an d Di l ar e a couple, althoug h we never se e them togethe r excep t in photographs. Fergu s and Dil—despite their difficultie s i n adjustin g thei r need s to one another—ar e a romantic couple too , a s Dil remind s Fergus, misleadingl y quotin g th e first five words of John 15 : 13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down hi s lif e fo r hi s friends. " But Jody an d Fergu s ar e also a n unlikely couple, at least in an extended sens e of that term, and it is Jody who first starts Fergu s down th e developmenta l path tha t culminate s in hi s rela tionship with Dil. Finally , our understanding of this as an unlikely couple film is further complicate d by Jody's ambiguous significance for Fergus, in whose desire for Dil h e is repeatedly implicated. 26 The presenc e of these overlapping emotional relationships keeps the film from fitting neatly into those narrative patterns that assume a couple constituted by a single, unambiguous, although possibly conflicted, desire. Yet, t o see this film as an unlikely couple film allows us to appreciate the transformation narrativ e through which the film asserts the power of empathy to transcend social difference. Although th e film suggests that a redemptive love cannot easil y be found, th e Fergu s we see sitting opposit e Dil is expiating his guilt by taking on the punishment that should be hers. This ethic of suffering fo r others provides Fergus with a sense of integrity that hi s terrorist politic s coul d not . Althoug h th e final image of Fergus and Dil is a far cry from, say, that of Edward an d Vivian on the fire escape in Pretty Woman, the film asks its audience to see Fergus and Dil as having

226 Th

e Crying Game

achieved a type of love that overcomes the difference i n their sexual orientations an d even grants them a degree of wholeness and peace. The film ends without definit e narrativ e closure—we do not know , for example, exactly what will happen to Fergus or how his relationship wit h Dil will develop—but Fergus has maintained his empathy with Dil, overcoming the homophobia at the core of his heterosexual identity. Althoug h the film refuses t o defin e th e precis e nature of Dil an d Fergus's relation ship, he has accepte d the rol e of her protector, eve n though hi s repeate d admonitions that she not use such terms of endearment as "love" or "dar ling" imply that h e does no t want he r to consider him her lover. On th e other hand , Oil's devotion to him suggests that sh e sees them a s a couple because sh e believes that Fergus's action s ar e motivated b y love, even if that love cannot be easily sexualized. This refusa l t o finally disambiguate Fergu s an d Dil's relationshi p ac cords with th e film' s strategy o f destabilization. B y withholding a n easy description o f the pair—no t quite lovers yet also not simpl y friends—the film forces viewers to maintai n their awareness that sexualit y exceeds the grasp of the hetero/homo dichotomy. Earlier, I mentione d tha t The Crying Game ha s been criticize d fo r it s denigration o f biological females . The fil m ha s als o been reprove d by a number o f reviewer s and fil m theorist s fo r racism , most tellingl y fo r it s use of blacks as vehicles for the spiritua l enlightenment o f a white male. 27 Without denying the validity of these criticisms , and without wishin g to endorse the film's own Aesopian metaphysics, I want to stress the achievement of its strategy of destabilization. Particularl y because of its innova tive use of aspects of the noir tradition, The Crying Game invests the figure of the unlikely couple with an interest and complexity beyond most of the earlier films we have considered. It demonstrates the resilience and significance of this narrative figure by providing its audience with transgressive experiences of attraction and desire, thereby calling into question our confidence that we know what difference means.

Notes 1. This characterization poses problems for films about homosexual couples. If oee of the partners is ambivalent about his or her sexual orientation, as is the case in Desert Hearts and The Crying Game, this characterization does apply. 2. Although thi s fabl e stem s fro m Aesop , The Crying Game take s i t fro m Orson Welles's Mr. Arkadin (1955).

The Crying Stag 22

?

3. In an otherwise insightful article, "The Scorpion an d the Frog: Agency and Identity i n Neil Jordan's The Crying Game" Camera Obscura, 35 (May 1995): pp. 25-51, Amy Zilliax fails to see this parable as a source of the film's metaphysics. 4. The film's problematmng of sexual categories causes difficulty i n finding appropriate language to describe it. Thus, should Dil be referred to as "he" or "she"? I choos e the latter, out of deference to her own gender choice , but note my discomfort with having to choose either, 5. For a brief discussio n of the problem s wit h suc h assumptions , see Anne Fausto Sterling , "How Many Sexe s Are There?" New York Times, March 12 , 1993, p , 15. 6. To simplify matters , in this chapter I repeatedly ignore the possibility o f bisexuality. 7. The Crying Game makes it difficul t t o determine whethe r Dil is a transvestite or a transsexual, i.e., someone who "perceives his or her gender identity as incongruous with th e anatomica l reality and activel y seeks to resolv e th e conflic t through sex-reassignmen t surgery" (Deborah Heller Feinbloom , Transvesfites and Transsexuals: .Mixed Views [n.p. : Delacourte Press, 1976] , p. 24). I simplif y b y characterizing Dil as a transvestite. 8. This is not t o sa y that the y migh t no t enjo y th e fil m o r fin d it s political standpoint convincing, only that the narrativ e of the fil m i s not structure d with them primarily in mind. 9. Maurice Yacowar also discusses the film's "implication o f the viewe r in it s dynamics" in "Neil Jordan's Viewing Game," Queens Quarterly, 100: 2 (1993): pp. 457—464. He fail s to discuss how the viewer is misled by the film, however. 10. When th e fil m wa s firs t shown , i t wa s a sign of great sophisticatio n t o claim tha t on e had no t bee n fooled by the film, that one knew from th e outse t that Dil was a cross-dresser. Di d thi s reflec t a discomfort felt a t the violation o f the audience's assumption of epistemic superiority? 11. Film noi r tends to use this "trick" often. In Sea of Love, for example, the audience is made to share the Al Pacino character's epistemic position an d is startled to find out that it is mistaken in so doing. See Nick Pappas's discussion of Sea of Love in Philosophy and Film, Cynthia A. Freeland and Thomas E. Wartenberg, eds, (New York and London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 109-125. Other recent films that rel y on thi s devic e include The Usual Suspects (1997) , The Spanish Prisoner (1998), and In the Company of Men (1997) . 12. The man y more complexities of the noi r genre continue to fascinate film theorists. See , fo r example , Richard Dyer' s analysi s in hi s The Matter of Images (New York and London: Routledge , 1993), pp. 52-72. Dyer's discussion o f the labyrinthine structure of noir films fails, however , to not e thi s importan t epis temic characteristic of the genre. 13. The audienc e is given some visual clues—of which Jody is unaware—that prepare it for the subsequen t reversal. There are repeated shots of Fergus and of

228

He Crying Game

Jude looking for or at him. Nonetheless, it is only after th e kidnapping has taken place that the audience acquires a context for placing these clues . 14. Neil Jordan,^ Neil Jordan Reader (Ne w York: Vintage, 1993) , p. 185. Al l future reference s to this work wiE be given parenthetically . IS.Jody's interes t i n Jude migh t mak e some reader s uncomfortable applyin g the label "gay" to him. Since he claims that Di l is his type, I take him to be implicitly characterizing himself as gay. But the film' s destabilizing strategy includes the recognition tha t there are hybrid forms of sexuality, that a gay male can find a female desirabl e an d pursue her. The film wants us to see that sexua l desire and sexuality are not a s rigid as terms such as "gay," "straight," and "bisexual" make it seem. 16. Forest Whitake r is , o f course , a n America n acto r tryin g t o pla y a n Antiguan black. This odd casting choice is the result of marketing considerations that mak e it imperativ e t o hav e some American "names " in a film destined fo r U.S. distribution . 17. The film makes no attempt t o understand th e political goal s and tactics of the IRA, but only to discredit the terrorists for their cruelty. 18. In "The Crying Game an d th e Destabilizatio n of Masculinity" {Film and Philosophy, 3 [1996]): pp. 176-185), Richard Gull emphasizes the importance of sadomasochistic games in the film's plot. Although highlighting an important aspect o f the film, Gull's interpretation globalize s i n a way that distort s othe r ele ments of the film's narrative. 19. The pres s reactio n t o th e fil m i s critically surveye d b y Lola Youn g i n "'Nothing Is as It Seems' : Re-viewing The Crying Game," in Me Jane: Masculinity, Movies, and Women, Pa t Kirkha m an d Jane t Thumin , eds . (Ne w York : St . Martin's Press , 1995), pp. 273-283. 20. Regardless o f whether th e naiv e viewer identifies wit h Di l a s an object of male desire or with Fergus' s desir e fo r her, the revelatio n o f her se x disrupts th e boundaries of their categories o f gender and sexuality. 21. Marjori e Garber , Vice Vena: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), p. 231. 22. Fergus ha s now transformed the object of his desire into a version of Jody, emphasizing onc e again that Fergus' s attractio n t o Dil function s to maintain an erotic link to the dead man. 23. This failur e suggest s tha t th e huma n body resist s th e destabilizatio n fo r which the film argues. Zilliax makes this point in "The Scorpio n and the Frog." 24. See , for example , Kristin Handler , "Sexin g The Crying Game: Difference, Identity,Ethics"Film Quarterly, 47:3 (Sprin g 1994):pp. 31-42. 25. Although Di l claims that Fergus is serving time for her, the elaborate security arrangements sugges t tha t he has been imprisoned as an IRA terrorist fo r the political assassination Peter carried out .

The Crying Stag tt

9

26. In The Crying Game (London : The Britis h Fil m Institute , 1997) , pp. 11-12, Jane Gile s assert s tha t "the triangula r relationship [i s the] singl e mos t dominant theme in his [Jordan's] work." 27. This charge is made by, among others, bell hooks, "Seduction and Betrayal: The Crying Game Meet s The Bodyguard," i n Outlaw Culture (Ne w York : Routledge, 1994) , pp. 53-62; Alan A . Stone , "Revie w of The Crying Game," Boston Review, June/August 1993 , pp. 25-27; and Kristi n Handler , "Sexing The Crying Game.'"

This page intentionally left blank

12

Movie Romans and the Critique of Hierarchy This study of a type of movie romance I dub the unlikel y couple film has documented th e reason for the genre's enduring attraction fo r filmmakers and it s persistin g appea l t o audiences . Through m y investigatio n o f th e narrative and representational strategie s of ten significant instances of the genre, I have demonstrated it s power to illuminate a broad range of social issues, most centrally those that bear on the legitimacy of social hierarchy, I hav e argued that th e conflic t between th e romanti c an d social perspec tives embodied i n the narrativ e figure of the unlikely coupl e explain s this preoccupation wit h practice s tha t occlud e democratic/egalitaria n socia l relations. Thus, my interpretations hav e revealed tha t although ofte n de rided a s mere entertainment, unlikel y couple films can—and ofte n do — deeply engage fundamental social and philosophic issues . Narrative Fil m ani l Socia l Criticis m My claim fo r the unlikely couple film as a vehicle fo r social criticism i s at odds with man y of the mos t serious attempts t o theorize th e significanc e of mass cultural artifacts. Develope d unde r th e aegi s o f the Frankfur t School's dismissa l o f al l form s o f mas s culture a s regressive, importan t tendencies in academic film studies have treated popula r narrative film as necessarily complicit with dominan t socia l interests. 1 According t o thi s view, film's potential t o resis t suc h interests i s severely limited. Rathe r than criticize oppressive social relations, popular film shapes its consumers into subjects who willingly embrace their own subordination . This general perspectiv e ha s achieve d particula r prominenc e i n film studies, albei t rathe r indirectly—fo r example , in Laur a Mulvey' s extra 231

212

Movit Romtnee and the Critique at Hiertrehf

ordinarily influentia l article, "Narrativ e Cinem a an d Visua l Pleasure," which incorporates Lacania n psychoanalysis and feminist theory into her critique of the political effec t o f popular film.2 Mulvey argues that viewers derive pleasure from narrativ e film by identifying eithe r with mal e seducers or the femal e character s who serv e merely as the objects of the males ' desire. This endlessly repeated bifurcation of gender roles into active male heroes and passive female beauties , Mulvey argues, operates t o reproduce patriarchy: Male viewers are invited to enjoy idealized versions of them selves while femal e viewer s ar e offered onl y demeane d an d demeanin g selves with which to identify , The reductivenes s of Mulvey's argument can be—and has been, even by Mulvey herself3—met at a variety of different levels . One well-known line of criticism, developed by the practitioners of cultural studies, argues that Mulvey's Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective i s too deterministic , treat ing audience s as fated t o receiv e film along clearly establishe d path s o f identification. Viewers, it is argued contra Mulvey, can choose thei r own lines of affiliation wit h on-screen characters and are not constrained to respond to particular characters in predetermined ways. Thus, female viewers' identificatio n wit h Pretty Woman's sex y prostitut e nee d no t b e masochistic, that is, as the object of male desire, but, as Hilary Radner argues, could ste m fro m a perception o f Vivian's role a s a sexual entrepreneur whose desirability gives her power over men.4 This strategy of "reading against the grain" conceives of the film audience as able to develop for itself interpretations o f films that violate the filmmakers' expectations.5 Both perspectives offer importan t insight s about the natur e and reception of film, but neither is adequate to the interpretation o f the politics of popular narrative . Althoug h Mulve y an d thos e influence d b y th e Frankfurt Schoo l attribut e to film the power to completely structure audience response, practitioners of the cultural studies paradigm treat viewers as havin g nearly total freedo m to construc t interpretation s t o sui t their own purposes. B y focusing on the socially critical elements present in the narratives themselves , I attemp t t o stee r a middle course , one tha t ana lyzes the "textual" meaning that viewers must incorporate int o their more individualized, "contextual" response s t o a film. The analyse s 1 have offered i n thi s book ar e guided b y the judgment tha t film , a form o f mass culture, is capable of sophisticated socia l criticism, a fact tha t need s to be taken into account in theoretical reflection on the nature of the medium . My exploratio n o f the narrativ e and representational strategie s o f the unlikely couple genr e also suggests tha t the relationshi p o f audiences t o

Movie Remanee taJ the Sritiqitt of Hterarekf

233

on-screen character s is not a s one side d a s both of these theoretical per spectives conceive. It i s doubtful that audience s of the films I hav e dis cussed uncriticall y identify with individua l characters, either compEantl y or against the grain. Instead, because these characters are often as complex and nuance d as the peopl e who matter t o viewers in their everyda y lives, viewers are asked to critically examine—not identify with—the masculinity and femininity of the characters . Consider, fo r example, Peter Warne and Elli e Andrews, // Happened One Nigb/s, unlikel y partners. Althoug h there are attractive aspects to both, each must be educated t o overcome a form o f pride. How is a viewer who simply identifies with Peter to appre ciate some of the film's more memorable sequences—as when Elli e bests Peter b y getting them th e lif t h e could not—o r catch th e significanc e of Peter's humiliatio n a s a takedow n o f hi s masculinis t attitud e o f superiority? My approac h t o fil m thu s involve s neither it s wholesale dismissal as ideological nor its uncritical adulation as subversive. Although alway s desirous of exploring the social-critical reac h of unlikely couple films, I have also sough t t o registe r unevennesses , hesitations, retreats , an d incoher ences. Throughout, m y interpretations hav e insisted on close readings of the individua l films themselves, tracing the developmen t of their critica l perspectives on class, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Romance and Self-Dei/elopmenf A furthe r challeng e t o m y approach t o th e unlikel y couple film comes from second-wav e feminism, which see s the celebratio n o f the romanti c couple as an objectionable ideological prop for patriarchy. For example, in her study of Hollywood romance , Virginia Wright Wexman characterizes the projec t o f such films as "modeling reifie d gende r role s an d romantic attachments."6 Althoug h Wexma n admit s tha t man y contemporar y Hollywood film s n o longe r confor m t o thi s description—largely , she thinks, because of changing sexual and gender norms in the broader soci ety—she claim s that popula r narrativ e cinema's focu s o n romanc e pro vides models for the romantic practices of their audiences. My examination of the unlikely couple film indicates som e of the limitations o f Wexman's view. First, althoug h man y of the films assume that romance necessarily eventuates in marriage, the tw o homosexual unlikely couple films we have investigated specifically challenge the normative sta tus of heterosexuality. There is nothing abou t narrative cinema in general

234

Movie Romtnee and the Critique at Hiertrehf

or th e unlikel y couple fil m i n particula r tha t prohibit s i t fro m explorin g nonheterosexual avenues. That said, it is fair to acknowledge that unlikely couple films do endorse long-term, committe d relationships , whethe r sanctione d i n marriag e or not. In part, this is because without suc h commitment, ther e would be little socia l tension t o investigate. Fo r this reason , the unlikel y couple film cannot explore forms of sexual relationship alternativ e to the couple . But th e fac t tha t th e figure of the romanti c couple serve s t o groun d these films' critiques of social hierarchy casts doubt on Wexman's assertion that th e films have supported wha t she calls reified form s o f romantic relationship. Although th e romances are central in these films, they are not simply models t o which audience s ar e meant to aspire . And i n an y case, the relationship s themselve s d o no t confor m t o Wexman's characteriza tion, for at least in films like It Happened One Night, the heterosexual relationship is deliberately founded on the male partner's rejectio n of his noxious masculinism. A relate d critiqu e o f romance, albeit on e that target s literatur e rathe r than film, is articulated by Vivian Gornick in her recent, widely acclaimed book, The End of the Novel of Love, Gornick claim s tha t works tha t at tribute transcendent power to romantic love—the power to endow the self with lasting coherence an d purpose—are anachronistic, out of touch wit h contemporary developments , amon g them , althoug h neve r explicitl y ac knowledged, feminism : "Romantic lov e no w seem s a yearning to div e down into feeling and come up magically changed, when what is required for th e makin g o f a sel f i s th e deliberat e pursui t o f consciousness." 7 Although Gornick' s tal k o f a self a s "made" or "achieved" is somewhat puzzling—Who or what, after all , is it that makes or achieves this self? — she is clearly suspicious of what we might call the central trope of the un likely couple film—th e profound , transformative potential o f romanti c love. She sees the craftin g of a mature self as, of necessity, taking place in isolation fro m others : "For bette r o r worse, tha t effor t [o f creating th e self] i s a solitary one, more akin to the ar t of making art than of making family."8 Gornick's one-side d emphasi s seems to me to slight one of the main insights of the unlikely couple film: that self-development always occurs in a social context of some sort, even if that context posits the physical absence of others. Rejecting the individualism of the modern Western philosophi c tradition—where al l "action" take s plac e i n isolate d reflectio n i n th e thinker's stud y and no t in , fo r example, familie s o r th e workplace 9—the

Movie Remanee taJ the Sritiqitt of Hterarekf 2

3S

unlikely couple film celebrates th e possibilitie s fo r accelerated self-devel opment offered b y romantic love. The partner s in these films draw on the acknowledgment an d suppor t thei r unlikel y unions provide t o mee t th e challenges that threaten furthe r growt h an d self-understanding, But unlikely couple films do not simply offer th e vague promise that romance will brin g fulfillment ; rather , their narrative s take up thes e chal lenges an d show how, specifically, the experience of romance helps one to meet them. In so doing, the unlikely couple film aligns itself with Hegel, one of whose paramount philosophic achievements , the establishmen t of the necessar y and inherent sociality of the individual, he memorably rendered in the formula, "an I that is a We and a We that is an I."10 Although the interpretations develope d in previous chapters must stand as the main evidence fo r thes e claims , le t m e briefl y rehears e som e o f th e way s in whic h unlikel y romance encourages—sometimes , indeed , forces — individual growth . Some individuals , able t o d o onl y what the y thin k other s expec t o f them, may never yearn for something more; but other s ar e torn between the ever-present lure of social conformity and a kind of barely submerged despair over the lack of meaning in their lives. In his magnum opus, Being and Time, Martin Heidegge r refer s to the phenomenon of the "they-self," that is, a self constituted by that anonymous mass, the "they," whose opinions are our own. 11 Although a number of characters in the films I have discussed experienc e this tension—Emmy in All: Fear Eats the Soul, wh o succumbs t o th e they ; Mississippi Masala's Mina , wh o doe s not—non e confronts i t mor e squarely than White Palaces Max Baron . Only throug h his lov e for Nor a an d he r withdrawa l from hi m doe s th e num b adman find the courage to reject the vapid conformism of his yuppie milieu, A second threat to individual fulfillment i s the illusion of a kind of radical self-sufficiency , I hav e characterized thi s belie f a s the failur e t o ac knowledge one's finitude, one's dependence on others, and not just for the fulfillment o f one's materia l needs. Perhaps n o characte r exemplifies this failure more , despit e hi s educatio n an d accomplishments , tha n Pygmalion^ Henr y Higgins. Eliza Doolittle's love for Higgins awakens all her astonishin g powers, but h e is never able to accept his feelings for her, clinging instead to his sterile bachelorhood . In showin g that constrainin g social circumstance s can be a significant obstacle t o individua l development, Mississippi Masala isolate s a third threat to personal growth. Although Mina' s submersion in her immigrant enclave threatens to choke off her aspirations to a wider field of experience,

236

Movie Remanee and fke Srifique tf Hierarchy

her unlikel y relationship wit h Demetriu s give s he r th e strengt h t o challenge her fathers authority and to break out of that confining milieu . As we have seen, the unlikely couple genre also includes films that temper celebration s o f th e transformativ e powe r o f unlikel y romanc e b y showing tha t othe r factor s ar e necessary to individua l development . I n their different ways, bothjung/e Fever and Alt: Fear Eats the Soul dispel th e illusion tha t love is by itself sufficien t t o foster personal growth , that love is all you need. Most centrally, both films posit community with other s as an important additiona l element i n this process, something tha t a love relationship no t onl y canno t provid e b y itself bu t i n thes e instance s jeo pardizes. My acknowledgmen t o f the unlikel y couple film's valorization o f th e importance o f romantic lov e connects t o claim s tha t Stanle y Cavel l has made in connection with the genres he calls the comedy of remarriage and the melodrama of the unknown woman.12 Cavell, too, stresses th e importance o f romance—indeed, in hi s view, of marriage—t o huma n fulfill ment. The differenc e i s that for Cavell, the fundamental threat to successful romanc e i s skepticism, individuals ' inability t o acknowledg e full y th e reality of other huma n beings, whereas unlikely couple films posit a range of threats stemmin g fro m th e transgressiv e makeu p of their couples . B y contextualizing the threat s to self-development i n structures of social hi erarchy, the unlikely couple film provides a more various and yet also more specific account of the power of romantic love. Strategies o f Critiqu e Throughout, I have emphasized tha t the unlikely couple film is fundamentally concerned with questions of the legitimac y of specific form s o f social hierarchy—especially, o f class , race , gender , an d sexua l orientation. 13 Indeed, I view this focu s a s the principal sourc e of the genre's philosophi c interest. At this point, I want to review in more systematic fashion the various forms of critiques advanced in the films I have examined. The simples t strateg y employe d is that of inversion, valorizing th e pre viously inferior term in a dichotomy while simultaneously denigrating th e term earlie r privileged . I n th e firs t essa y i n hi s The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche offer s a n example , arguin g tha t our curren t mora l scheme — which he calls "slave morality"—is the result of just such an inversion of a previous, "aristocratic" framewor k of valuation.14 Behaviors that had been dismissed a s bad by the earlie r code are now endorsed b y slave morality as good.

Movie Remanee taJ the Sritiqitt of Hterarekf 2

37

Despite m y reservations about White Palaces ending, it functions i n just this way . Emblemati c i s th e us e t o whic h th e oppositio n highbro w opera/lowbrow countr y musi c i s put . Max' s turnaroun d i n th e fina l scene—in which th e Oa k Ridg e Boys win out ove r Gianni Schicchi—seals the film's more general elevatio n o f blue-collar authenticit y ove r yuppie phoniness. Desert Hearts als o effect s a n inversion , in thi s cas e of sexua l orienta tions. Although no t full y an d consistentl y pursued , the fil m repeatedl y shows lesbianism to be less exploitative, more caring, than heterosexuality, especially in its contrasting depiction s o f Darrell's an d Vivian's interest i n Cay. The primar y problem wit h thi s strateg y i s the obviou s one : It substi tutes one hierarchy for another. As a result, although th e initial, invidious, valorization i s challenged, i t onl y sets anothe r hierarchy—on e perhap s equally problematic—in its place. A second approach to undermining the legitimacy of hierarchy may be likened t o th e philosophi c techniqu e o f argumen t b y counterexample . Calling attentio n t o particular instances that violate assertions of general ity, counterexample s demonstrat e th e invalidit y of those general claims. The apocrypha l stor y of Diogenes exhibiting a plucked chicken to defeat the propose d definitio n o f the huma n being a s a featherless bipe d illus trates the technique . In Pygmalion, th e Britis h aristocracy' s pretension tha t a n inherent bio logical superiorit y justifie s it s privileg e i s undermined b y the counterex ample of the lowl y flower girl wh o passe s as a duchess. Eliza' s abilit y t o learn the manners and speech habits associate d with aristocract s serves to demonstrate tha t their socialization , no t their genetics , i s responsible fo r their distinction . The proble m with this approach is that the counterexample may not be understood—or, perhaps, even intended—as a general indictment o f hierarchy. Instead, the character presented i n this way may be taken as exceptional, thu s leavin g hierarchy in place . Indeed, I hav e analyze d Pretty Woman as precisely this sort of response to Pygmalion's ascen t narrative. Human beings in general have a difficult tim e reconciling themselve s to the fac t o f thei r finitude , thei r mortalit y an d necessar y dependence o n others, and a great deal of energy in Western cultur e has been expended in the attempt a t its denial. Unlikely couple films make an interesting inter vention in this regard: Because they connect socia l inequality to this anxi ety, the y illuminate the appeal of hierarchy to the privileged. For example, in // Happened One Night bot h Ellie' s clas s position an d Peter' s gende r

218

Movie Remaps and fke Srifique tf Hierarchy

induce postures o f superiority that fue l suc h denials an d tha t the y mus t shed to acknowledge their nee d for each other. Interracial unlikel y couple film s ar e noteworthy fo r thei r assumptio n that racial hierarchy is illegitimate. Their preoccupation i s the question of how this hierarchy can be eliminated—their focus les s on the questio n of legitimacy than on that o f eradication. These films constitute a n ongoin g dialogue about whether integration i s a viable strategy for attaining racial equality. We have seen how Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Jungle Fever give thei r respectiv e affirmativ e an d negativ e answer s t o thi s question , their discordant assessments a function o f their distinct social and historical contexts as well as the differing political commitments of their makers. Mississippi Masala, althoug h sharin g Guess Who's Coming to Dinners commitment to integration, has a very different understandin g o f what is at issue. Its focus is the doomed attemp t o f a community of immigrants to maintain/construct a pure nationa l identit y i n thei r ne w homes, an at tempt tha t implicate s them i n the sam e kind of racist practices that ha d contributed to their displacement. Alt: Fear Eats the Soul demonstrates th e unlikel y couple film's ability to address not only acts of individual prejudice but als o structural aspects of racism. Its presentatio n o f how Emmy' s loss of privilege affect s he r atti tude toward her unlikely partner is a brilliant examinatio n of why racism is so resistant t o projects for its elimination . The final mode of critique mobilized by the genre is destabilization. To destabilize a hierarchic ordering is to show that it is inadequate to the re ality it attempt s to conceptualize. We first saw this possibility in connec tion with King Kong, a film that ultimately destabilizes th e nature/cultur e (or animal/human) dichotomy that it initially posits. Kong's susceptibility to white (!) female beauty checks his uninhibited desire, as his developing tenderness for Ann Darro w humanizes him. The initia l sequences o f White Palace pursue a more general strategy of destabilization b y depicting th e difference s tha t divide its unlikely partners a s unexpected source s of the couple' s vitality . The obsessivel y neat Max and the equall y compulsively messy Nora are not onl y not unsuite d to on e another, but, because they share similar experiences of tragic loss, actually connect a t a level that escape s the socia l categories dominant i n Max's yuppie milieu. But onl y The Crying Game fully explore s destabilizatio n a s a means of undermining social hierarchy. Its stor y of how a series of oppositions—of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation—can be overcome through empath y illustrates the inability of these exhaustive and antagonistic dichotomies t o

ftevie Rsmtnee taJ the Critique of ttietatehf

t$9

adequately conceptualize bein g huma n and th e meanin g o f difference . More impressive still is the way the film actually guides what I have called naive viewers throug h a destabilizing experience , an d becaus e the y ca n only retrospectively understan d the significanc e of feelings evoked b y its characters, it is able to undermine surety about the categories with whic h we habitually conceive sexuality. Through these tactics , The Crying Game attempts to reach out to viewers who do not share its political perspective . This survey of the strategies unlikel y couple films undertake to subvert hierarchy demonstrates both th e range of their socia l criticism and the seriousness of their intent . These popular narrative films are not simply vehicles fo r mas s entertainment, althoug h the y ar e that; they ar e just a s much an occasion fo r provoking collectiv e reflectio n about th e inequitie s of hierarchy and the possibilities for its elimination .

The Unlikely Couple Film as Mass Art Throughout thi s study , I hav e noted ho w specifi c unlikel y coupl e film s compromise their narratives as a result of their concern abou t how depictions o f certain character s migh t affec t their audiences ' responses. This raises the general question of how narrative film's status as a mass art for m affects th e nature of the genre . This is a difficult question , th e answe r to which woul d requir e a great deal more attention tha n I can give it here. I would like to point out, how ever, that th e unlikel y couple film's status a s a genre o f a mass art for m cuts both ways : Although i t is tempting t o treat film's need to appeal to a broad audience as incompatible with its status as art or its potential as critique, thi s ver y necessity also helps explai n th e genre' s embrac e o f a socially critical, democratic perspective , To begin, let me rehearse some of the effects tha t result from th e requirement of appealing to a broad audience. One suc h is the demand that end ings be uplifting , affirmative resolution s o f whatever conflict s have been raised. The problem tha t this demand creates, especially when it is imposed on films by concerns abou t marketing , is that tackin g on suc h feel-goo d endings may trivialize critical perspectives developed over ninety minutes or more. Both Pygmalion an d White Palace suffe r fro m suc h mutilation. An d Pretty Woman wa s actually transformed from a critique of the ruthlessnes s of capitalism into an affirmation o f the anachronistic family firm. This is a significant problem, especially when studios require that films pass th e tes t o f audienc e respons e rathe r tha n aestheti c coherence . Perhaps all that can be said here is that many of the films I have discussed

240

Movit Romtnee and the Critique at Hiertrehf

show that it is possible for films with positive narrative closure to address important issues, Unlikely couple films are themselves concerned tha t their ow n transgressive depiction s of unlikel y love not elici t i n thei r audience s th e ver y prejudices the y ar e trying t o counter . This concern is present i n mos t of the interracia l unlikel y couple film s w e examined . Fo r example , Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Mississippi Mamla bot h exceptionaliz e thei r male partner to minimize the likelihood tha t their audience s will perceive them a s sexual predators. I n eac h case , there i s a price t o b e paid: Guess Who's Coming to Dinners lack of realism is attributable directly to its one dimensional exaltatio n o f John Prentice , wherea s Mississippi Masa/as Demetrius, a paragon, can be read as the exception that proves the rul e as far a s black males are concerned. The films that deal most successfully with their audiences' susceptibility to noxiou s stereotypes ar e those tha t d o no t simpl y seek to preemp t th e problem throug h idealize d representation s bu t criticall y addres s the m i n their narratives. Thus, for example, both White Palace—with its concern to block th e consignmen t of the working-class "dum b blonde" t o the posi tion o f mistress-but-not-wife—and Alt: Fear Eats the Sou/—'with it s por trayal of the crassness and stupidity of racial bigots—successfully confront stereotypes that might otherwise bedevil them . A film's anticipation of issues stemming from its reception by a mass audience can thus be as much a spur to its socially critical perspective as a hindrance. It i s a serious theoretica l mistak e to trea t th e mas s statu s o f th e medium a s simply an obstacle t o film's claims as an ar t form . Indeed , th e antihierarchic spirit of the unlikely couple film may owe as much to its de sire to appeal to a broad audience as it does to any other singl e factor. And as the success of three unlikely couple films—Good Will Hunting, As Good as It Gets, an d Titanic—at th e 199 8 Academ y Awards , a s wel l a s one—Shakespeare in Love—M. th e 199 9 Award s attests, explorations o f issues o f socia l hierarch y continu e t o interes t filmmaker s an d dra w in audiences. A Partin g Wor d I began this study by analyzing a shot from Some Like It Hot, pointing ou t how a beguiling appearance may conceal a reality the depths of which can only be appreciated throug h sympatheti c engagement. M y intentio n fo r this study of the unlikely couple film parallels that discussion: I wanted t o plumb the often overlooked depths o f a series of films frequently taken t o

Movie Remanee taJ the Sritiqitt of Hterarekf 24

1

be merely diverting. I hope I hav e shown that these films offer their audiences muc h mor e than simpl e diversion : As well a s engaging importan t philosophic issues, unlikely couple films present sophisticate d socia l an d political critiques o f som e o f th e centra l issue s o f their—and our—day , Their narrative s embody a critical dialogue between a romantic perspective that privileges love above al l else and a social perspective that claims realism in its favor. Our abidin g interest in th e outcom e of that dialogue guarantees that the unlikely couple film will remain a significant genr e of popular narrative film.

Notes 1. One importan t sourc e for this view of mass art form s i s the chapte r on th e culture industr y i n Ma x Horkheime r an d Theodo r W. Adorno' s Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Continuum, 1982), pp, 120-167. 2. Originally publishe d i n Screen, 16:3 (Autum n 1975) : pp. 6-18, thi s articl e has been widely anthologized . 3. See her "Afterthoughts o n 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema' Inspired by Duel in the Sun (King Vidor, 1946)" in Framework, 15-1 7 (1981) : pp. 12-15. 4.1 discuss Radner's argument in Chapter 4 . 5. Feminist film critics such as Claire Johnston hav e developed the concep t o f "reading against the grain." For a discussion of how such interpretations function , see Rober t Lapsle y an d Michae l Westlake , Film Theory: An Introduction (Manchester: Mancheste r Universit y Press, 1988), pp. 27-31. 6. Virginia Wrigh t Wexrnan , Creating the Couple: Love, Marriage, and Hollywood Performance (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 220. 7. Vivian Gornick, The End of the Novel of Love (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), p. 162 . 8. Gornick, The End of the Novel ofLove, pp . 16-17. 9. For a philosophic exploratio n o f these themes , se e my "Descartes' Mood: The Questio n o f Feminism in the Correspondenc e wit h Elisabeth, " i n Feminist Approaches to Descartes, Susa n Bordo , ed . (Stat e College : Pennsylvania Stat e University Press, forthcoming). 10. This is one o f the task s that Hege l set s himsel f in hi s Phenomenology of Mind, A . V. Miller, tr . (Oxford, UK : Clarendon Press , 1977) . That wor k can also be read as a dramatization of a variety of threats to the achievemen t of the self, threat s progressivel y eliminate d a s a n ever-riche r individualit y i s developed. 11. Martin Heidegger , Being and Time, Joan Stambaugh , tr. (New York: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 107-122. 12. Cavell discusse s thes e tw o genre s in Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge , MA : Harvar d Universit y Press , 1981 ) an d

242

Movit Romtnee and the Critique at Hiertrehf

Contesting Tears: The Hollywood Melodrama of the Unknown Woman (Chicago : University of Chicago Press , 1996). 13. Let m e remind th e reade r that a s 1 discussed in footnote 1 0 of Chapter 1 , the unlikely couple film extends beyond thes e four types of hierarchy, but tha t I have limited myself to a consideration o f these in this study. 14. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, i n Bask Writings ofNletzse.be,. Walter Kaufmann , ed, and tr. (New York: Modern Library , 1968), pp. 460-492.

Bibliography Andersen, Erik a Surat . 1993 , "Review of Mississippi Masa/a." Film Quarterly 46:4, pp. 23-26. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 1992. In My Father's House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Barry, Cecelie S. 1992-1993. "MississippiMam/a." Cineaste 19:2-3, pp. 66-67. Bhabha, Homi K. 1996. "The Other Question: Difference , Discrimination , and the Discours e of Colonialism." In Housto n A . Baker, Manthia Diawara , and Ruth H. Lindeborg , eds., Black British Cultural Studies: A Reader, pp . 87-106. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Bogle, Donald. 1996. Toms, Coons, Mulattos, Mammies, and Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films. New York Continuum. Brecht, Bertold. 1964. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, John Willett, ed. and tr. New York Hill and Wang. Burns, Rob, an d Stephe n Lamb . 1981 . "Social Realit y an d Stylizatio n i n Fear Eats, the Soul: Fassbinder' s Stud y i n Prejudice. " New German Studies 9: 3 (Autumn), pp. 193-206. Cardullo, Bert. 1991-1992. "Law of the Jungle." Hudson Review 44, pp. 639-647. Carroll, Noil. 1990. "The Image of Women on Film: A Defense of a Paradigm." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 48:4 (Fall), pp. 349-360. . 1984. "King Kong: Ape and Essence." In Barry Keith Grant, ed., Planks of Reason; Essays on the Horror Film, pp. 215-244. Metuchen, NJ, and London : The Scarecro w Press. Cavell, Stanley. 1996. Contesting Tears: The HollywoodMelodrama of 'the Unknown Woman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1981 . Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, . 1979 The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film. Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press. . 1969. Must We Mean What We Say? New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, Kennet h B. 1979. "Contemporary Sophisticate d Racism. " In Joseph R . Washington Jr., ed., The Declining Significance of Race? A Dialogue Among Black and White Social Scientists, pp. 99-105. Philadelphia: n.p. 243

244 Bibliograph

y

Cripps, Thomas. 1993. Making Movies Black: The Hollywood Message Movie from World War II to the Civil Rights Era. Ne w Yor k and Oxford , UK : Oxfor d University Press. DeMott, Benjamin. 1990 . The Imperial Middle: Why Americans Cannot Think Straight About Class. New York: William Morro w and Co . Douglas, Mary . 1966 . Purity and Danger. New York and Washington , DC : Praeger. Dyer, Richard. 1993. The Matter of Images. New York and London: Routledge. . 1988. "Monroe an d Sexuality." In Janet Todd, ed., Women and Film, pp. 69-96. New York Holmes and Meier. Essien-Udom, E. U. 1962. Black Nationalism: A Searchfor an Identity in America. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press . Fassbinder, Raine r Werner. 1992 . The Anarchy of the Imagination, Michae l Toteberg an d Le o A . Lensing , eds. Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s Universit y Press. Feinbloom, Debora h Heller , 1976 . Transvestites and Transsexuals: Mixed Views, N.p.: Delacourte Press. Foucault, Michel. 1978. History of Sexuality: Volume 1, An Introduction, tr . Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Book s Freud, Sigmund . 1962. Civilization [Kultur] and its Discontents, James Strachey, tr. and ed. New York: W. W. Norton . Gainor,J. Ellen. 1991. Shaw's Daughters: Dramatic and Narrative Constructions of Gender. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Press. Garber, Marjorie. 1995. Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life. New York: Simon and Schuster. . 1992 . Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. Ne w York: Routledge. Gervasi, Tom. 1984. America's War Machine: The Pursuit of Global Dominance. New York: Grove Press. Giles, Jane. 1997. The Crying Game. London: The Britis h Film Institute. Gill, Brendan. 1967. "Good Causes." The New Yorker, December 16 , pp. 108-110. Goldberg, Davi d Theo . 1993 . Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning. Oxford, UK, and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Gortiick, Vivian. 1997. TheEndof the Novel of Lave, Boston: Beacon Press. Grimm, Jacob, an d Wilhelm Grimm . 1944 . The Complete Grimms Fairy Tales. New York: Pantheon Books. Grover, Ron. 1997 . The Disney Touch: Disney, ABC, and the Questfor the World's Greatest Media Empire. Chicago: Irwin. Gull, Richard. 1997. *The Crying Game and th e Destabilizatio n of Masculinity." FilmandPMIosoffy,3(1996),pp. 176-185 . Handler, Kristin. 1994. "Sexing The Crying Game: Difference, Identity , Ethics. " Film Quarterly 47:3 (Spring), pp. 31-42.

Bibliography 2 4

5

Hegel, G . W . F . 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit, A , V . Miller, tr . Oxford , UK : Oxford University Press. Heidegger, Martin. 1996 . Being and Time, Joan Stambaugh , tr. New York; State University of New York Press. Hochschild, Arli e Russell . 1989 . The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking. Holmlund, Christine. 1991 . "When I s a Lesbian Not a Lesbian?: The Lesbia n Continuum an d th e Mainstrea m Femm e Film." Camera Obscura 25—26 , pp . 145-178. hooks, bell. 1994. Outlaw Culture. New York; Routledge, hooks, bell, an d Anuradha Dingwaney. 1992. "Mississippi Masaia." Z Magazine, July/August, pp. 41-43. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno . 1982 . Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum. Ibsen, Henrik. 1985. A Doll's House, Michael Meyer , tr. London: Methuen. Johnson, Brian D.. 1991 . "Se x at the Colo r Bar : Spike Lee Dissects Inter-racia l Romance." Macleans, June 17, p. 55. Jordan, Neil. 1993.vf Neil Jordan Reader, New York: Vintage. Kael, Pauline. 1971. "Raisin g Kane." In The Citizen Kane Book, shooting script by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles, note s on the script by Gary Carey, pp. 1-84. Boston : Little, Brown and Co. Kant, ImmanueL 1987 . Critique of Judgment, Werne r S . Pluhar, tr. Indianapolis , IN, and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishers. Kaplan, E . Ann . 1997 . Looking for the Other: Feminism, Film, and the Imperial Gaze. New York and London: Routledge. Kauffrnann, Stanley . 1986. "Hars h Contradictions. " The New Republic, Ma y 12 , pp. 24-26. . 1967. "Recent Wars." The New Republic, December 16 , pp. 19,30. Kellner, Douglas. 1995 . "Spike Lee's Morality Tales." In Cynthia A. Freeland and Thomas E . Wartenberg, eds., Philosophy and Film, pp. 201-217. New York and London: Routledge. Kort, Michele . 1985 . "Independen t Filmmake r Donn a Deitc h Control s he r Whole Show." MS, November , p. 66. Knight, Arthur. 1967. "The New Look." Saturday Review, December 16 , p. 47. Kramer, Stanley, with Thomas M. Coffey. \997.AMadt Mad, Mad, Mad World; A Life in Hollywood. Ne w York: Harcourt Brace & Company. Kroll, Jack , Ver n E . Smith , an d Andre w Murr . 1991 . "Spikin g a Fever. " Newsweek, June 10, pp. 44-47. Lapsley, Robert , an d Michae l Westlake . 1992 . "Fro m Casablanca t o Pretty Woman: The Politic s of Romance." Screen 33:1 (Spring) , pp. 27-49. . 1988 . Film Theory; An Introduction. Manchester, UK : Manchester University Press.

246 Bibliograph

y

Mayne, Judith. 1990. Tassbinder's All: Fear Eats the Soul and Spectatorship." In Peter Lehman , ed., Close Viewing!: An Anthology of New Film Criticism, pp. 353—369. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press. Merck, Mandy. 1987. "Desert Hearts." The Independent 10: 6 (July), p. 17. Morgenstern, Joseph. 1967. "Spence and Supergirl. " Newsweek, Decembe r 25, pp. 70-77. Murrey, Laura. 1981. "Afterthoughts on 'Visual Pleasure an d Narrative Cinema' Inspired by Duel in the Sun (King Vidor, 1946)." Framework 15—17 , pp. 12—15. . 1975. "Visual Pleasure an d Narrative Cinema." Screen 16: 3 (Autumn), pp. 6-18 . Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper an d Row. Neale, Steve. 1992. "The Big Romance or Something Wild?: Romantic Comedy Today." Screen 33:3 (Autumn), pp. 284-299. Neale, Steve, and Frank Krutnik. 1990. Popular Film and Television Comedy. Ne w York and London: Routledge. Nietzsche, Friedrich . 1968. Genealogy of Morals. I n Basic Writings of Nietzsche, Walter Kaufmann , ed. and tr. New York: Modern Library. Noble, Lorraine, ed. 1936. Four-Star Scripts. Ne w York: Doubleday, Doran an d Co. Ovid. 1955 . Metamorphoses, Rolf e Humphries , tr . Bloomington : Indian a University Press. Pappas, Nickolas. 1995. "Failures of Marriage in Sea of Love (The Love of Men, the Respect of Women)." In Cynthia A. Freeland and Thomas E. Wartenberg, eds., Philosophy and Film, pp. 109—125. New York and London: Routledge . Plato. 1970. The Symposium of Plato, Suzy Q^Groden, tr. John A. Brentlinger, ed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Radner, Hilary. 1993. "Pretty Is as Pretty Does: Free Enterprise and the Marriage Plot." In Jim Collins , Hilar y Radner , and Ava Preacher Collins , eds. , Film Theory Goes to the Movies, pp. 56-76. New York: Routledge. Raskin, Robert. 1934. It Happened One Night. Hollywood, CA: Script City. Riddell, Tom. 1985. "Concentration an d Inefficienc y i n th e Defens e Sector : Policy Options." Journal of Economic Issues 19:2 (June), pp. 451—461. Rowe, Kathleen. 1995. The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter. Austin: University of Texas Press. Rule, Jane. 1964. Desert of the Heart. Tallahassee, TN: Naia d Press. Russo, Vito. 1987. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies. Ne w York: Harper and Row. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky . 1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shakespeare, William. 1980 . Romeo and Juliet, Bria n Gibbons, ed. London an d New York Methuen .

Bibliography 24

?

Shaw, George Bernard . 1980. The Collected Screenplays of Bernard Shaw, Bernard F. Dukore, ed. Athens: University of Georgia Press. . 1957, Pygmalion. London: Penguin Books. Silverman, Kaja . 1992. Male Subjectivity at the Margins, Ne w York and London : Routledge. . 1989 . "Fassbinder an d Lacan: A Reconsideratio n o f Gaze, Look an d Image." Camera Obscura 19 (January), pp. 54-83. Snead, James . 1994 . White Screens: Black Images. Ne w Yor k an d London : Routledge. Sellers, Werner. 1986. Beyond Ethnicity; Consent and Descent in American Culture. New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Spelman, Elizabeth. 1991 . Inessential Other. Boston: Beacon Press. Spoto, Donald . 1978 . Stanley Kramer; Film Maker. Ne w York; G . P . Putnam's Sons. Stacey, Jackie. 1995. "'If You Don't Play , You Cant Win': Desert Hearts an d th e Lesbian Romanc e Film." In Tamsin Wilson, ed., Immortal, Invisible: Lesbians and the Moving Image, pp. 92—114. London and New York: Routledge. Sterling, Anne Fausto . 1993 . "How Many Sexe s Are There?" New York Times, March 12, p. 15. Stone, Alan A. 1993. "Review of The Crying Game" Boston Review, June/August, pp. 25-27. Wartenberg, Thoma s E . Forthcoming . "Descartes ' Mood : The Questio n o f Feminism i n th e Correspondenc e wit h Elisabeth. " I n Susa n Bordo , ed. , Feminist Approaches to Descartes. State College: Pennsylvani a State University Press. . Forthcoming . "Humanizin g th e Beast : King Kong an d th e Representation o f Blac k Male Sexuality. " In Danie l Bernard! , ed., Classic Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. . 1998. "Romantic Love and th e Feuda l Household: Romeo and Juliet as Social Criticism." Unpublished manuscript. . 1990 . The Forms of Power; From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, Washington, Booker T. 1899 . The Future of the American Negro. Boston: Small, Maynard and Company. Wexrnan, Virgini a Wright. 1993 . Creating the Couple: Love, Marriage, and Hollywood Performance. Princeton : Princeton University Press. White, Deborah Gray , 1985, Ain't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Co. Williams, Patricia , 1991. The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press. Wilson, William Julius . 1980 . The Declining Significance of Race. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. X, Malcolm. 1970. By Any Means Necessary. New York: Pathfinder Press.

h hhh

Bibliogaphy

Yacowar, Maurice. 1993. "Neil Jordan's Viewing Game." Queen's Quarterly 100:2 , pp. 457—464. Young, Lola. 1995 . "'Nothing Is as It Seems' : Re-viewing The Crying Game? In Pat Kirkhai n an d Jane t Thumin, eds. , Me jane: Masculinity, Movies, and Women, pp. 273-285. New York: St. Martin's Press. Zilliax, Amy. 1995. "Th e Scorpio n and th e Frog : Agency an d Identity in Neil Jordan's The Crying Game." Camera Obscura 35 (May), pp. 25—51 .

Index Academy Awards, 112,240 Acknowledgment problem, 6,34, 35, 39,48,53,236 Adultery, 62 Advise and Consent, 196 African Americans . See Blacks Age, 89, IQS(nl), 130(n21), 175,176, See also Youth AH: Fear Eats the Soul (Angst essen Seek auf), 15,173-188,196, 235, 236, 238,240 change of behavior in, 181-183,187 cinematic techniques in, 175,180, 184 use of "gaze" in, 175,181, 182(photo), 184 All That Heaven Allows, 189(nl9) American Dilemma, An (Myrdal) , 121-122 Arnin, Hi, 153,158,167,171(nl2) Angle, 143 Arranged marriage , 153,154,155, 156,159,160,170 As Good as It Gets, 24 0 Assimilation, 157,18 3 Assumptions, 3,4 10,43,47,92,98, 126 about class, 21,24-25,51,71 about gender, 21,51 about race, 125,173,179,186,238 about sexuality, 211,212,218,222 Audiences, 232-233,239,240 deception of , 212-214,215,218, 222,227(nll)

Bachelorhood, 28,33-42,23 5 Beauty, 13,75-76,79,80,81, 85, 87(n21), 88(n26), 126,132,238 Being and Time (Heidegger), 23 5 Bhabba, Homi, 155 Birth of a Nation, 8,126 Blacks, 7,8,17(nl2), 18(nl9), 111, 127,151(n7), 157,170,172(nl5), 176 black males demonized, 12 6 black nationalism, 137,138,162 black self-hatred, 139,141,143 , 144,150 identifying with black community, 139,142,144 See also Race; Racism; Sexuality, of black males Bogle, Donald, 112,126 Bringing Up Baby, 44(n9) Bull Durham, 93 Burns, Rob, 181-182 Capitalism, 68,69, 70,72, 77, 80,82, 239 Cavell, Stanley, 5-6,16{n7), 39, 45(n20), 48-49,66(n7), 236 Celluloid Closet, The (Russo), 206(nlO) Censorship, 19 6 Children's Hour, The, 19 6 Cinderella, 22,30-31,60,68,74-76, 77-78, 81 Civilization and Its Discontents (Freud), 11,17(nl3) Clark, Kennet h B., 136

250 Class, 3,5, 7,21,23,25,43,47,49,50, 51,66, 71,74, 76, 77-78,87{nn 16,19), 92,104,146-147,150, 151(n7), 198,204-205,217,237 adjustment up/down , 9,24,28,60, 68, 79,85,86,105,162 versus gender, 21,33 versus race, 147,149 See a/so Social hierarchies; Wealth; Working class Color-blindness, 121,123,143 . See also Race; Racism Comedy of remarriage, 6,39,45(n20), 48,49,236 Coming to America, 16(nl), 23 Community, 236. See also Blacks, identifying with black community Conformity, 105,154,175,183, 235 Containment strategy , 68—69, 86 Cooper, Merian C., 9 Cripps, Thomas, 112 Cross-dressing, 1,16(n2) , 211. See also Transvestites Crossing Delancey, 14 3 Crying Game, The 3,9,15,209-226, 238-239 deception of audience in, 212-214, 215,218,222 metaphysics of, 217,222,227(n3) Cultural studies , 232 Curtis, Tony, 1,95 Deceptions. See Audiences, deception of Defense industry, 84 Deitch, Donna, 193,195,196 , 206(n6) Democracy, 47,49,54,55,66,75,79, 80,231,239 of the dollar, 77 See also under Education

Index DeMott, Benjamin, 24,33 Dependency, 63,235,237 Desert Hearts, 23,193-205,237 lesbian lovemaking in, 203—204, 206(nlO) Desert of the Heart (Rule), 206(n6) Dingwaney, Anuradha, 156 Diogenes, 237 Doll's Home, A (Ibsen), 41,45(n20) Drugs, 139,142 Dumb blonde cliche, 96-97,240 Economic issues, 137-138,181 Education, 32,37,42,65,161 in democracy, 56,57-61 problem of, 53 Elijah Muhammad, 137-138 Empathy, 210,217,218,222,225,238 Endings, 239-240. See also Pygmalion, ending of; White Palace, ending of End of the Novel of Love, The (Gornick), 234 Ethnicity, 154-155,217,222. See also Race Eurocentrism, 14,17(nl3) Families, 164,168,179,197 Farber, Stephen, 196 Fashion, 77,87(n21) Fassbinder, Rainer Werner, 15,173, 189(nn 8,19) Father of the Bride, The, 111 Feminism, 42,69,72,75,154,157, 158,211,232,233,234,241(n5) Film noir , 213,226,227(nn 11,12) Film studies , 231 Forbidden frui t motif , 132,143, 144

Foucault, Michel, 206(n4 ) Frankfurt School , 231,232 Freedom, 12,60,232 Freud, Sigmund, 11,17(nl3)

Index Gable, Clark , 47,66(n8) GainorJ. Ellen, 43(nl) Gambling a s metaphor, 195-196, See also Risk taking Garber, Mariorie, 221 Garvey, Marcus, 137 GcKtarbeiter, 173,174,188(n4) Gay Deception, A, 23,44(n4) Gender, 3,5 , 7,21,33,42,43,47,49, 51,66,90,150,224,232,237 sex-gender distinction , 211, 220-221,223,228(n20) See also Cross-dressing ; Masculinisrn; Transvestites Genealogy of 'Morals, The (Nietzsche) , 236 Giles, Jane, 229(n26) Good Will Hunting, 24 0 Gornick, Vivian, 234 Griffith, D.W., 8,126 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, 15, 111-128,133,137,143,150, 151(n4), 153,162-163,186, 188(n8), 196,204,238,240 interracial kiss in, 113,114(photo), 120,202 Gull, Richard, 228(nl8) Hawkins, Yusuf, 134,146,147 Hegel, G.W.F., 12,13,74,235, 241(nlO) Heidegger, Martin , 235 Hepburn, Katharine, 112,119 Heterosexuality, 1,3,5, 9,42,43,193, 194,196,198,202,203,205,210, 211,233,237 hetero/homo distinction, 220,226 and male intimacy, 216 Hierarchy, See Social hierarchies Hollywood Productio n Code, 113, 196 Homosexuality, 1,9,44(n9), 189(n8), 193-205,207(nl7), 210,211,

tSt 214,216,218,219,228(nl5), 233,237 closeted, 194,2G6(nS) homophobia, 194,195,196-199 , 216,220,226 lesbian lovemaking, 203-204, 206(nlO) hooks, bell, 156 Human worth , 3, 7 Humility, 54,63 Ibsen, Henrik, 41 Identifying, 232,233. See also Blacks, identifying with black community Identity, 154-155,156,157,163,165, 170{n3), 171(nl3), 176,185,215, 216,223,226. See also Blacks, identifying with black community Impotence, 97,129(nl4) Improvising, 57,58-59,60 Individualism, 234 Integration. See under Race Intermarriage, 134,141,143, 158 Italian Americans, 133,146,147 It Happened One Night, 24,47-66, 89, 106(n4), 195,233,234,237-238 in The Great Deception, 6 0 in Wall of Jericho, 55,62, 64 Johnston, Claire , 241 (n5) Jungle Fever, 9,15,131-151,162-163, 186,188(nl), 236,238 official interpretatio n of, 132-133 Kaplan, E. Ann, 157 King Kong, 9-14,17(nn 12,16), 18(nl9),238 Kramer, Stanley, 112,113,128(n5), 204 Krutnik, Frank, 48

252 Lamb, Stephen, 181-182 Language, 176—177,180. See a/so Pygmalion Lee, Spike, 15,131-132,134,135, 136,140,146,149,150 Lemmon, Jack, 3 Lesbianism, 237. See also Homosexuality, lesbian lovemaking Liberals/liberalism, 111-112,113, 114,120,121,143 Loss, 94,97 Love, 3, 8,10,11,13,14,21,22,36, 39,42,43,62,63,64-65, 76, 97, 116,119,131,143,145,153,159, 164,170,172(nl7), 178,186, 205,212,222,225,226,234 models for romantic practices of audiences, 233 Machismo, 133,148. See also Masculinism Malcolm X, 134,137 Marriage. See Arranged marriage; Intermarriage Masculinism, 21,39,41,42,43,47, 49,51-52,54,57,64,66,97,98, 233,234 and dependency on women, 63 male privilege, 68,87(20) See a/so Bachelorhood Mass culture/art, 231,232,239-240 Mayne, Judith, 181 Merck, Mandy, 207(nl6) Meritocracy, 74,87(nl6) Miscegenation, 7,18(nl9) Mississippi Masala, 15,153-170, 235-236,238 criticism of, 154,155,156,157 double narrative in, 158-159,168 Monroe, Marilyn, 1,95-98 Moral rectification, 76,81,82, 84,86 Morgenstern, Joseph, 112

Index Mulvey, Laura, 189(nl9), 231-232 Murphy Eddie, 16(nl) Music, 81,103,124,196,202,203, 225,237 My Beautiful Launderette* 207(nl7 ) My Fair Lady, 22 Myrdal, Gunnar, 121-122 "Narrative Cinema and Visual Pleasure" (Mulvey), 232 Narrative figure, 7-8,14,226,231 Narrative strategies, 5,8, 9,24,113, 120,154,170(n2), 174,187-188, 196,209,210,212,213,231,232 versus representational strategy , 126-128 Nationalism, 174. See aha Blacks, black nationalism Neale, Steve, 48, 72 Neatness/messiness, 93-94 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 236 Otherness, 13,17(nl2), 48,53,132, 155,156,178,183,185 Parents, 197 Patriarchy, 5,48,120,169,232,233. See also Masculieism People of color, 163 Personal Best, 206(nlO ) Phenomenology of Mind (Hegel) , 241(nlO) Phenomenology of the Spirit (Hegel) , 1 2 Philosophy, 5-6,39,234,235,236. See also Hegel, G.W.F. Plato, 39 Poitier, Sidney, 112 Popular Film and Televi$ion Comedy (Neale and Krutnik), 48 Prejudice. See Racism, as individual prejudice "Pretty Woman" (song), 81

Index Pretty Woman, 4-5,9,15,22,24, 67-86,89,95,232,237 original screenplay of, 68,239 shopping episodes in, 76-82, 84 Pride, 47,49,51,52,53,55,56,58, 61,64,66,69,233 Privilege, 26,32,74,237-238. See also Masculinism, male privilege; Race, racial privilege Prostitution, 26,67,69,70,71-74,77 , 86(n4), 87(nl4), 88(n27), 142 Psychoanalytic perspective, 232 Pursuits of Happiness (Cavell) , 39 Pygmalion, 15,21-42, 64,67, 79-80, 87(n23},89,235,237 ending of, 22,42-43,239 irony in, 28,36 Race, 3, 7,118,175-176,217,240 economic issues concerning, 137-138 integration, 113,120,123-125,133 , 135,137,138,139,141,143,144, 146,150,183,222,238 interracial kiss, 113,114(photo), 120,202 racial privilege, 174,178-181, 184-185,186,187 separatism concerning, 133,137, 143 as social construction, 128(nl ) See also Racism; under Class Racism, 14,15,18(nl9), 111, 112 , 113,114,119,126,129(nn 5,17), 133,134,135,136,143,146,147, 148,150,154,155,157,160,162, 177,179,180,182,183,184,187, 215,226 as individual prejudice, 120—122, 124-125 internalized, 141,144 intractability of, 137,173,174,188, 188(nl),189(nl8),238

253 structural aspects of, 122 See also Race Radner, Hilary, 72-74, 87(n n 13,14, 21), 88(n27), 232 Reagan era, 67, 84 Religion, 89,90,138 Representational strategies, 5, 8,92, 113,120,123,125,154,156, 187-188,188(n8), 194,196,198, 205,210,231,232 versus narrative strategy, 126—128 Riddell,Tom,84 Risk taking, 195-196,201,202,203 Romantic perspective. See Social/romantic perspectives Romeo and Juliet 8,23,153,159,170 Rowe, Kathleen, 66(n9), 87(n27), 96 Rule, Jane, 206(n6) Russo,Vito,206(nlO) Sadomasochism, 228(nl8) Sarandon, Susan, 90,92-93 Scapegoating, 183 Schoedsack, Ernest B., 9 Science, 21,26,35,38,39,40,44(nl4) Sciorra, Annabella, 131,145-146 Scorpion/frog Aesop fable , 210,217, 222,223,225,227(n3) Sea of Love, 227(nll) Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 206(n5) Seductions, 95, 97,98,195,199, 207(nl6),215 Self-development, 234-235,236 Selves, 234,235,241(nlO) Sexism, 148,176 Sex, Lies, and Videotape, 9 3 Sexuality, 3,10,14,17(nl6), 23, 26-27,44(n9), 72,92,93,96, 105,106(nll), 118,126, 139-140,147,152(nl7), 160, 164,165,176,177,184,194 of black males, 126,127,146,162, 180,189(n8), 196,240

Index

254 complexity of, 211 destabilizing, 210-212,220-221, 226,228(nl5),239 interracial curiosity concerning, 131-132,141,145,149 repressed attraction, 197 sex-gender distinction , 211, 220-221,223,228(n20) as social construction, 210 See also Heterosexuality; Homosexuality; Prostitution ; Seductions; under Assumptions Shaw, George Bernard , 21,22,43, 44(nll) Skepticism, 39 Skin color, 135,141,152(nl7), 160, 161,163,164,179 Social criticism, 3,4,154,203,210, 231-233,236-239 Social domination, 47—4 8 Social hierarchies, 3,4,5,21,35,47, 66,68, 76,79-80, 84,212,231, 234,236,237-238,240 based on knowledge, 61, S7(n23). See also Science as biologically grounded, 26,32, 237. See also Beauty in "Cinderella," 74 destabilizing, 6-9,10,28,209,214 , 238. See also Sexuality, destabilizing Social interests, 4,5 Social oppression, 6,48 Social/romantic perspectives, 2, 8—9 , 10-11,209,231,240,241 Solidarity, 157,158,163,168,169, 170,186 Some Like It Hot, 1,3-4,95-98 Someone to Watch Over Me\ 14 3 Spader James 90,92-93 Stacey, Jackie, 207(nl5) Stereotypes, 4, 90,92, 96,98,101, 105,106(nn 3,5), 127,132,155,

156,162,172(nl5), 180,197, 210,240 Symposium (Plato) , 39 Titanic, 240 Tokenism, 136 . See also Race Tracy, Spencer, 112,117,119 Transformations, 24,29,30,31,57, 63,65,79,81,82,187,195,196, 199,200,225,236 Transsexuals, 227(n7) Transvestites, 210,211,221,224, 227(n7). See also Cross-dressin g Unlikely couple genre, 1-5,6,14—16, 17(nlO),43, 72,144,154,188, 193,197,209,210,222,231-241 Unruly Woman, The; Gender and Genres of Laughter (Rowe), 66(n9) Values, inversion of, 236-237 Violence, 13 Virtue, 74,75,76 Washington, Booke r T., 137 Wealth, 49,50,51,52,53,58,66, 68, 69, 71,76, 79, 82,84,86,161 Wexman, Virginia Wright, 106(n6) , 233 Whitaker, Forest, 210,228(nl6) White Palace, 9,15,24, 89-105,205, 206(nl3), 235,237,238,240 ending of, 102-105,239 Working class, 23,70,102,104,105, 107(nl5), 133,146,147,198, 199,206(nl3),240 condescension to, 205 Youth, 123-124 Yuppies, 91, 94,102, 104 Ziffiax,Amy,227(n3)