Pleasantville (SPOILERS,Rants and Bears, Oh My!)
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
-------------
You've all been discussing this recently so my wife and I decided tonight
we'd finally rent it and watch just so I'd shut up about wanting to get
in on the discussion. :+D
SPOLIERS
Where to begin...
As you all know, the film is filled with symbolism ranging from
hit-your-head-with-a-bowling-ball obviousness to some subtleties that I
liked. MY wife and I enjoyed the unique use of color to symbolize the
changing nature of this world but by the end of the film were extremely
pissed (angry for you Brits) at the writer/director for the obviousness
of his symbols. Yes, we agreed, today's slacker (for Sasha) has so little
knowledge of history (but feels good about themselves) that they need the
symbolism explained to them so they can go to their trendy cafes and
discuss the symbols and so that bottom-line Hollywood can be appeased
(i.e. ticket sales). How else would you explain the need for Barney Fife
to have to put a circle around the damned apple, a symbol, which, in and of
itself, was so hideously obvious when "Eve" plucked it from the tree?
Let's see of anyone caught the following symbols I noted in the film:
Bud's girlfriend - Eve
TV Repairman - God
Big Bob - Hitler/McCarthy/any other evil, white, male tyrant
you can think of
Whitey - KKK, Hitler Youth
Chamber of Commerce - Nazis
Coloreds - Black Americans
The courtroom separated into Heaven (colored people) and hell (black and
whites)
Color - freedom
Black and white - conformity
The film attempted, with color, to show that life has many shades, that things
are not just black and white. Did anyone see the ties to the "Sixties"? Hell,
it was blatantly obvious. First, the music. We progressed from innocent
crooners, to Buddy Holly to the Beatles ("Across the Universe" at the end) The
film left the townspeople in the same position at the end that the Sixties
left us at in 1970 (and hence the use of "Across the Universe"). Jeff Daniels
showed us the struggle for artisitic independence. We had the "rebellious
kids", who, as the Boomers like to think, were the innocent ones who showed us
all the way to truth (puleeeese).
The film showed us that freedom is much more valuable than conformity.
I will not argue with that. The Sixties showed us all that. Where it fails
in a big way is in the same place the "revolutions" of the Sixties
failed. It does not stress, as it should, the responsibilities which must
accompany freedom if we are to remain civilized and survive.
I had a hard time watching the second half of the film once I noticed
its "marginilized peoples" slant. The rise of the women's movement, as
embodied by Joan Allen's character, was a good example of this. She
discovers her inner strength but must hide it (symbolically with make-up)
lest her evil bad white suburban husband discover it. I will admit that
many women were repressed in the 50's, but let's stop the male bashing,
please? Not all husbands were like this. There was not one husband in the
film who seens as showing any compassion for his wife. The "marginilized
peoples" histories agenda couldn't have been more blantant than one
character's mentioning of "history being taught consistently" or some
such (I don't remember the exact wording).
The "coloreds" issue, once again, was too blunt a piece of symbolism.
WHy didn't the director allow us to figure this one out on our own? The
division of the courtroom into "coloreds" and "whites"? I got it the
first time.
I was also particularly troubled that it had to be the "younger
generation" which educated the older people (there's those damned Sixties
again!). The opressors were never allowed to discover it on their own
(silly me, they're just stupid, domineering, white Anglo-Saxon
Protestant, males).
The Nazi thing was pretty blatant as well. I saw them destroy the soda
fountain, turned to my wife and said "Here comes the book burning scene"
and no sooner had I said that than they started burning the books. WHich
books? Why Huckleberry Finn and "The Catcher in the Rye" of course.
Let's talk about the Eve myth. Bud, or whatever his character's name
was in the 90's, is quite happily following God (Don KNotts) and God is
quite happy with him. Then God warns him about what he is doing, Eve
tempts him from the Garden (and it's no coincidence she finds that apple
in a tree near a garden by that pond) and next thing you know, God's
pretty pissed and wants him to come back? What does he do? What every
good Sixties radical did. He shuts God off. (Please don't read this as if
I am a Bible thumper, I'm not. YOu can believe whatever you want, as do I).
Is it coincidence that the first work of art Daniels' character sees in
the book is the fall from grace of Adam and Eve?
Let's talk about the sexual symbolism. Is it a coincidence that Bud's
mothers first orgasm is followed by a burning bush? Did you see Jennifer
sucking on SKip's cherry? Did you see the "open petals of the flowers"
after each of our protagonists have their first sexual encounter in
Pleasantville?
One of the few symbols which worked for me in the film was the use of the
color (which I said at the beginning of this diatribe was unique) to express
the repressed individuality of the characters. The people of Pleasantville
gained color when they realized they were not one-dimensional. Jennifer and
Bud gained their color as well when they realized things about themselves
which had been repressed in their 90's world. Hell, I even thought it was cute
that Don Knotts was allowed to show his "repressed side (can you picture
Barney Fife saying "Goddamn?"). But, did the writer/director leave this for me
to discover on my own? Just this one little morsel? NO! He had to have even
this drawn out in an unnecessary soliloquy in the courtroom scene of the
film. Why couldn't Bill Macy's character have discovered his "colored" side
(i.e. his love for his wife) when he was alone in that dark house in the rain
storm, a time when many of us realize how much people mean to us?
Oh well. Was the film good? Yes. I enjoyed the colors. I enjoyed at least
having some symbolism in a film for once. Was it great? No. Would I see it
again? Probably. But, I don't like being treated like a moron by
filmakers. Learn from Kubrick. Give your audience a chance and they'll rise to
the occasion and if they don't, they lose. I thought this film was yet another
sorry example of the cynical attitude people have of my parent's generation,
another attempt to put down the best intentions of those who produced
television programs in the 1950's. Maybe they were wrong and maybe some of
them were repressive. They weren't all evil. I feel sorry for the
director. This film, was, at best, a senior project in a film school or an
English class.
Dave