"I see you." |
This is not all bad, I suppose. The love stories in movies are often designed to teach some kind of lesson: money isn’t that important [see: Jerry McGuire, Trading Places], humility is a virtue [see: Good Will Hunting, Pride and Prejudice], Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams are incompatible [see: Midnight In Paris], and as I discuss below, people often must undergo profound change before they are ready for a lasting relationship [see: just about anything].
Hollywood says you're a cockroach. |
Let me take it one step further to make sure my point is clear. I'm not against love and I don't think it automatically makes us selfish. I even think it is beautiful how it can chemically alter our brains in wasp-like fashion (As I learned at Body Worlds and the Brain, love is kindled first by the release of adrenaline, then drug-like dopamine, and then oxytocin and vassopressin for long term bonding.) But the problem is that in happy ending after happy ending, Hollywood teaches us that life goes better if we follow our hearts, which is not true. Hollywood's "love" often looks like a categorical imperative that we ought never to contradict. On the other hand, if "love" doesn't happen to us then Hollywood's story will make us bitter and resentful.
I guess it's my turn to leave you, kid. |
Despite being a movie written for my grandfather’s generation, Casablanca has believable modern relationships. The people act in ways that seem largely rational to me, and, I think, to most of us. Rick is jilted and self-destructive, but wants a reason to be good again. Ilsa has been faced with agonizing decisions in her life, and wants a second chance at love or to assuage her guilt for hurting Rick. Victor Lazlo is living his life in service to mankind more generally, but still trying to keep his marriage alive. What often bothers me about old movies is that the love stories rarely seem plausible. Perhaps they were plausible back then, or perhaps I can’t pick up on subtleties that would have meant more to a pre-war (or pre-method-acting) public, but these dysfunctional relationships strike me as downright bizarre. In My Fair Lady and The King and I, it is understandable why the male falls in love with the witty, plucky, compassionate, long-suffering female, but there never seems to be a moment when you can reconcile why Audrey Hepburn or whoever played Anna could ever fall in love with the raving solipsists sharing their silver screen. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers might seem tame at first glance, but the chauvinist, bride-napping plot is so bizarrely outrageous I can’t even imagine Quentin Tarantino attempting it nowadays. The African Queen is another one. I remember finding it quite upsetting that the affable and resourceful Humphrey Bogart should fall in love with the priggish (and mentally ill as far as I could tell) Katharine Hepburn. The problem with the character development, I guess, is that some gaping character flaws are never really addressed. I’m not convinced throughout these movies that the king of Siam, Hepburn’s character, or Henry Higgins ever really change. They just seem to eventually accept the persistent love offered by the sane person on the screen, which makes me question the sanity of said sane person.
Insane and the brain |
But just because Rick Blaine is changed doesn’t mean that he automatically earns the right to a traditional “happily ever after.” That’s what makes the ending of the movie all the more satisfying, and this is how it completely turns upside down what we are now conditioned to expect from Hollywood. Through a chance meeting at Rick’s Moroccan watering hole, an old flame is kindled between he and Ilsa, who is now married to Victor Lazlo. We expect emotional “love” to conquer all and reunite Rick and Ilsa who were so tragically separated many years ago. But the problem is that there are actually more important outcomes at stake in Nazi-occupied Europe and North Africa than whether two people get to live out their fairy tale ending, and Rick Blaine is man enough to face the facts. So the most "Hollywood" of Hollywood endings (“Here’s looking at you, kid.”) turns out not to be so "Hollywood" after all. The most loving thing Rick can do is face a future without his soul mate.
That’s a risky and complicated plot twist that Hollywood likes to avoid these days. Unfortunately, the fact that they usually do avoid it means that we have a planetful of Hollywood romantics who selfishly believe that if the universe owes them one thing, it is true “love.” Not only does that lead to a lot of disappointment, but it leads to broken relationships (when the “love” doesn’t last) and to individuals who are too weak to face the world without a relational crutch.
That’s why I liked Spanglish, too. I certainly didn’t expect such a satisfying experience when someone cornered me into watching a seemingly kitschy rom com. But aside from delivering great performances (as I recall) from Tea Leoni, Adam Sandler, and even the kids, the movie took a stand against traditional Hollywood love stories by showing how following the romance (no matter how ostensibly pure and justifiable) is not always the best choice for you and those you love. The plot seemed to be setting up a straightforward opportunity for Sandler to ditch his cheating wife and follow his “love” compass into a bilingual union with his housekeeper. The title even seemed to demand it. But then somehow, the plot meandered back to the kids, and what divorce does to kids. Refusing to follow the simplistic dictates of Hollywood “love” stories, screenwriter James L. Brooks kept these pre-adolescent complicating factors in the script and denied Sandler the right to his true “amor.” I was elated at the end to see responsibility and integrity given such seats at the table in a love story.
Oh man, kids screw everything up. |
No comments:
Post a Comment