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

Citation preview

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