Film-Philosophy
Journal | Salon | Portal (ISSN 1466-4615)
Vol. 5 No. 22, July 2001
Brian Butler
Transgression: Ordinary and Otherwise
Thomas E. Wartenberg _Unlikely Couples: Movie Romance as
Social Criticism_ Boulder: Westview Press,
1999 ISBN: 0-8133-3438-1 (hb);
0-8133-3439-X (pb) 254 pp. The genre of the 'unlikely couple
film' seems so familiar as to be banal. If an unlikely
couple film is described as a plot centered around 'the
predicament of two individuals whose efforts to be a
romantic couple transgress a social norm regulating
appropriate partnering choice' (xvi) such a film would
appear to represent one of only a few effective plots that
could be constructed around such a romantic coupling. And
the banal everydayness of such a plot seems on first viewing
to carry no truly interesting implications for a critical
appraisal of society. Clearly it is the most replicated and
familiar type of plot one could imagine. Indeed, what other
interesting type of plot revolving around a couple's romance
can really be imagined? What would the *really likely
couple* movie look like? And if there were such a creation
who would be its audience? True, there may be
situation-specific romance plots that don't implicate broad
social norms so clearly. For example, the couple may have to
overcome space aliens or other extraordinary or
idiosyncratic circumstances. But these are presumably the
exceptions. A more universal type of overcoming that is
based upon experiences that are more likely shared would,
presumably, have much broader appeal. Most romance-based
plots would seem to be inclined to portray more universally
experienced situations, and therefore must display acts that
appear to be at least minor social transgressions. If the
couple isn't transgressing the rules against dancing in the
local community, or the parent's picture of what mate is
appropriate, then what source of interest is available? If
the couple is truly likely, then a plot with any tension or
intrigue for the average viewer would be hard to imagine. In
_Unlikely Couples: Movie Romance as Social Criticism_ Thomas
E. Wartenberg sets out to show that there is legitimate
cultural critique going on in such a familiar and therefore
supremely unlikely place. In other words, the ever-present
genre of the 'unlikely couple film' carries within itself,
according to Wartenberg, unnoticed but important aspects
that can enable it to be an effective critical tool with
which to critique social norms. Particularly relevant in
this context for Wartenberg is the ability to critique
specific assumptions of class, gender, race, and sexual
orientation. An argument that the Hollywood-style
movie romance could function as social criticism of social
norms, if convincing, is welcome when confronted with
contemporary ideas from within academic circles. That is,
there is a tendency within the academy to see social
criticism as legitimate only if it resides and is found
within art objects or essays that wear their critical
pretensions on their sleeves. Further, it has become
apparent that much self-defined current cultural criticism
runs upon the replication of standard moves that identify
its critical nature as such to the proper *cultural
criticism* consumer. When such a genre has become so
codified, how can a person really hope for more than all the
expected moves to be present in the offered criticism? The
unlikely couple movie is just as ever present in film
culture as the cultural criticism genre is in the academy.
So how could such a popular movie genre do anything but
reflect accepted social norms? At least cultural criticism
is self-consciously critical and not just blindly
replicating (or even worse pandering) to culturally
entrenched norms. Wartenberg's argument here travels along
the lines pioneered by Stanley Cavell and others who claim
that there are valuable resources for criticism of cultural
institutions as well as hope for greater understanding in
the content that resides on the surface of popular media
objects. The common error, according to this stance, is in
not seeing that such everyday areas of cultural expression
are full of potentially helpful critical perspectives. This
is held to be true in spite of the fact that they are not
usually looked upon as essentially critical. There is great
hope in the claim that a proper appraisal of the
everydayness of traditional romantic movies carry a
transgressive and progressive potential. But is such hope
justified here? To see the ordinary as carrying
materials that hold transgressive hope is a somewhat subtle
point. It is also an exceedingly important point if correct.
To show that a critical reading of the surface content of
popular culture carries transgressive moves is to show that
tools for progressive change are already latent within the
culture's own broadest expressions. That any culture is, if
allowed to develop along its own lines, essentially
consistent and unanimously supported from within is one of
our naive and yet cherished contemporary beliefs. It may be
an important belief for people related to cultures that were
victims of colonization to hold onto, but it seems patently
false when projected onto cultures as broad, diverse, and
multileveled as those of the modern world. The awareness
that one of the dominant narrative images of modern society
-- the couple's overcoming of impediments to achieve romance
-- potentially carries an implicit critique of aspects of
social stratification, highlights the patchwork quality of
modern social norms. Given this potential, a thorough
analysis of the unlikely couple plot can highlight
assumptions of cultural consistency and the various ways
such assumptions can help marginalize internal dissenting
voices. And once the internal dissent or dissonance is
recognized it can be highlighted as an internal source of
cultural critique. But in modern culture the problem
might be much more insidious than that. The real problem is
that the transgressive has become the ordinary. Or, to be
even more to the point, the appearance of transgression is
often times important for a work of pop culture to signal in
order to be accepted as respectably consumable. Modern (or
post-modern) Northern American culture is one that prides
itself upon cultivation of the expressly transgressive. When
highly successful realms of pop culture are self-defined as
*alternative* the progressive nature of cultural critique
becomes just another product. Even reactionary conservative
groups rewrite their activities so as to see themselves as
progressive civil rights underdogs fighting the status quo
(one only has to bring the National Rifle Association to
mind to witness the absurd lengths such attempts can go). In
a context where every act of expression wraps itself in
transgressive dress and such transgressive dress is
necessary to satisfy social norms, what is the real hope for
any truly progressive critique of social hierarchy? How and
where is such transgressive content to be found that isn't
just more grist for the transgression mill? _Pretty Woman_ (Garry Marshall, 1990)
is used by Wartenberg as an example of pop transgression
that succeeds in replicating social norms and horizontal
structuring. The ultimate result of its narrative strategies
is a feeling of serious critique that signals to the viewer
a progressive destruction of capitalist ideals, all the
while bundling it with an underlying stance that reinforces
the very same views of social stratification through capital
based upon unquestioned assumptions of merit in proportion
to privilege. This is, for one who hopes to find in popular
film critical ideals of culture through which to critique
unquestioned assumptions, the worst of all possible worlds.
As Wartenberg explains, _Pretty Woman_ can clearly be read
as carrying a criticism of 'the newly ascendant finance
capitalists who came to prominence during the Reagan era's
rash of corporate takeovers and mergers' (67). Through the
vehicle of the down on her luck and warm-hearted prostitute
the corporate hawk is first critiqued and then, ultimately,
re-humanized. This seems to critique not only the
anti-social values encouraged within corporate culture but
also the anti-democratic nature of a world dominated by
corporate politics. But are things on the surface of this
film so simple? No, this appearance is belied by
identification of what Wartenberg calls 'strategies of
containment' (71) which serve to override the potential for
legitimate critique. Instead of questioning the existence of
social hierarchies and the concomitant attitudes of
entitlement for the rich, _Pretty Woman_ just implies that a
slight adjustment needs to be made so that the truly worthy
can live the privileged life and those that are not worthy
can remain in their predicament. Through the parallel
contrasts of good prostitute versus bad prostitute, and good
corporate owner versus bad corporate owner, the message that
is propagated is that hierarchy as such is natural, so all
that really needed to be done was to put the proper people
in the proper place. Moral entitlement to vastly unequal
amounts of society's goods is signalled by such obvious
moves as the beauty of the good prostitute (beauty equalling
moral worth) and the ultimate reasonableness and humanity
revealed within the apparently mean-spirited corporate hawk
(family values overcoming corporate values equalling
humanity). The feel-good movie ending replicates the Reagan
era's mythology of the acquisition of wealth mirroring the
intrinsic value of the person, just sounding a weak 'be
humane' counterpoint to its central ideology. It does this
all the while appearing to the audience to be showing the
inequity of social stratification. The important point made by Wartenberg
in using this example is that it isn't the expressly
transgressive content of the unlikely couple film that is
most important. Somewhat ironically, it is actually the
content of the unlikely couple film that is least critical
in form, that is most sincerely portrayed, that gives it the
critical power it has (when and if it has any). Finding the
tools for legitimate criticism within the ordinary and
honestly held aspects of the plot is the real key here. For
all the ironizing around the main theme it is the
seriousness with which this society holds the romantic
couple that makes its critique of gender, class, or race
assumptions so powerful. Only because one of the most
cherished social norms of this society conflicts with others
is there the ability to hope for genuine
critique. This is clearly shown in the strategy
used within the classic _It Happened One Night_ (Frank
Capra, 1934). In this movie a know-it-all masculine
newspaper reporter is pitted against (and is ultimately
coupled with) a strong willed, as well as spoiled, daughter
of a wealthy Wall Street tycoon. Just because it is obvious
to the audience that they are destined to become a romantic
couple, and that this destiny should and must rightly
override any other social imperatives, does the critique of
other social hierarchies appear plausible. The arrogance of
wealth is shown in the expectations that the tycoon's
daughter has towards others; she constantly assumes they
will adopt her priorities because of her wealth. The
ignorance of masculine professional pride is shown in the
*worldly* condescension of the newspaper reporter towards
other less experienced or knowledgeable people (especially
towards the privileged tycoon's daughter). When they first
meet we notice that 'Each regards the other as a beneficiary
of illegitimate social privilege' (51). But through their
relationship with each other this understanding, while not
overcome (indeed it is emphasized), is tempered with a
commonality that is to be seen as more important than their
differences. The plot's success depends upon this crucial
reaction. The audience's privileging of the romantic aspect
of the couple's existence animates the critique of these
socially structured attitudes. It is only because we want
the couple to come together that we allow the growing
procedure between the two to develop. In other words, it is
the un-ironic acceptance of romantic love that allows this
unlikely couple movie to effectively critique other social
norms. Therefore, the critical power derives its source from
an uncritical starting point. The unlikely couple film, portrayed as
the necessary transgression of social norms in order to form
a romantic couple, therefore functions effectively just
because its ground in banal everydayness. It is because the
transgression is expected that the unexpected critique can
be effective. The critique rests upon the absolutely
familiar. Wartenberg's examination of such a device shows
the poverty of an idea of cultural criticism that ignores
the sources of cultural criticism that are at the very least
latent within the content of mass culture. His examination
of strategies of containment is especially valuable because
it highlights a way to criticize critical defenses used
within mass culture to reify its own cherished but
uncritically accepted hierarchies. That there are tools for
progressive change set within popular culture also breaks
down the idea of culture as a homogenous whole that needs to
be critiqued from without. Finally, Wartenberg's analysis is
most interesting when he avoids the cliche avant-guardism
that looks at every apparent act of transgression as having
progressive or even critical content. In fact it is the
conflicting ideals within mass culture that can be utilized
in order to further critical awareness of social
structuring. Critique can be effective when resting upon a
culture's most central ideals -- for instance romantic love.
This is an important critical/philosophical
point. To his credit Wartenberg doesn't
accept the central plot device (romantic love) uncritically
either. For example, he is aware that romantic love might be
seen as replicating other illegitimate hierarchies; for
example it might privilege heterosexual love over homosexual
love. He therefore highlights examples of film plots were
homosexual romantic couples are used as a vehicle of
critique as well. Further, he doesn't let the various types
of solutions offered in mass culture to the felt need for
romantic overcoming rest without uncritical discussion. He
sees that the most effective critique rests upon
*destabilization*. What he means by this term is a critique
that aims to show that a hierarchic ordering is 'inadequate
to the reality it attempts to conceptualize' (238). To show
that the conceptual scheme cannot handle the elements it is
supposed to explain in this way is superior, according to
Wartenberg, than merely resting upon a single counterexample
(because the audience might just suppose such an example to
be an idiosyncratic exception) or to an inversion (because
then all that has happened is the replacement of the
illegitimate hierarchy with a *legitimate* one). _Unlikely Couples_ is both an
excellent work of cultural criticism and an effective call
for a more situated and culturally relevant ideal for
philosophy. In highlighting resources for cultural criticism
within mass culture it provides a counterpoint to more
elitist and culturally isolated ideals of criticism. Finding
critiques of cultural hierarchy within the medium of popular
film highlights the importance of a philosophical
understanding of such an ever-present medium of
communication. It also creates a critical awareness of the
various ways a film can signal the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of any given hierarchy. This same emphasis upon
philosophical issues within the surface content of popular
film helps bring home the final point that philosophy is
better thought of as the practice of critique, and not just
a body of knowledge. When philosophy is thought of as a
practice, and not a set of self-contained sources and a
priori topics, a more interested (and interesting) critique
results. University of North Carolina at
Asheville, USA Copyright © _Film-Philosophy_
2001 Brian Butler, Transgression: Ordinary
and Otherwise', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 5 no. 22, July 2001
<http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol5-2001/n22butler>.
Save as Plain Text Document...Print...Read...Recycle
Join the Film-Philosophy salon,
and receive the journal articles via email as they are published. here
Film-Philosophy (ISSN 1466-4615)
PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD, England
Contact: editor@film-philosophy.com
Back to the Film-Philosophy homepage
