While it may be just a guttoral instinct to bring down something just 
because it has been financially successful, I think that such an instinct 
is not necessarily unjustified when it comes to popular Hollywood 
productions.  The reasons for a Hollywood film's success are almost 
invariably the same.  Besides the obvious role of marketing (even if 
covered up through the sale of idealistic explanation "word of mouth"), 
a Hollywood film finds financial success in reaffirmation of the status 
quo.  Americans do not go to the movies to change their lives, but to be 
told that their lives are as good as it gets.  And I do not think it is 
really a narrow-mind generalization that any popular Hollywood film is so 
because it is nonthreatening and non-vital.  Thus one cannot help but 
immediately begin to question the foundation of a movie like "American 
Beauty" which has 
been sold as an artistic and daring work of the heart ("oh they deferred 
their pay because they believed in the project"). "Serious" (often 
self-deluding) critical discussion notwithstanding, this movie has had a 
large audience and has been popularly acclaimed.  One can then conclude 
fairly safely that the film's "daring" and "art" and its purported 
intentions did not succeed and probably were not really meant to (at 
least not in the highest selfless aesthetic sense).  It is rather sad to 
draw such pessimistic conclusions, but the rule of thumb is that any 
successful Hollywood movie is not really honest or groundbreaking, no 
matter what its publicity makes sure to say a thousand times.  And such is 
the case with "American Beauty."  This film is a rather ugly sham.  

Additionally, I think that your call for 
"serious critiques" appears to seek for you some 
self-justification and disregards 
the fact the attacks have been "serious" and not simply childish rants.  The 
film's "courageous" portrayal of suburban life is only a Hollywood 
attempt to cash in on what has by now become a whole genre of "suburban 
angst" films, perhaps started by Lynch's "Blue Velvet," a film of much 
more courage.  What "AB" does it to take advantage of already existing 
codes of "suburban angst" that the suburban audience is by now prepared for.
Thus the obvious use of stereotypes - impotent cubicled male,  cold
careerist wife, virgin cheerleader, outsider youth.  These codes are safe 
and not really disturbing and can be used to create a toothless melodrama.
These are some really juvenile, spiritless people who need to find drama and 
pathos in the "journey" of a character not to have sex with a virgin.  
In fact, such a premise itself cries out Puritanical reaffirmation and 
pornographic exploitation.  A really couragious film would have had 
Lester pop the girl's cherry.  As it is, we can all feel good about 
ourselves.

p.s. perhaps a more facetious topic of discussion, but nonetheless: what 
about the use of that bag?  why has such a consumerist icon been chosen?  
is the pseudo-zen babbling of the boy enforced or rejected by the boy's 
violent actions?  

On 
Wed, 17 May 2000, MEISSNER wrote:

> 
> The discussions surrounding AMERICAN BEAUTY that have been on this list
> lately (both the current one and the thread from several weeks ago) strike
> me not as serious critiques of the film, but rather as attempts at
> denigration based simply on the critical and financial success of the
> film.
> 
> My sense is that it has become fashionable to attack films such as BEAUTY
> because they have become mainstream successes and because they are easy
> targets due to their mainstream success. The same phenomenon occurred a
> couple of years ago (perhaps on this same list; I don't remember for sure)
> after the release and success of Spielberg's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
> 
> I happen to think that AMERICAN BEAUTY is a fine film, not without its
> flaws, but hardly the unredeemed piece of fluff that it is being
> characterized as in this current thread. I would rather see a substantive
> discussion of the film's strengths and weaknesses than a superficial
> condemnation of its supposed offenses.
> 
> How about, for example, comments on the film's portrayal of American
> suburban life circa 2000? What about the stylistic elements of the famous
> "dancing bag" sequence or the film's use of camcorder footage? Both lead
> actors were nominated for (and Spacey won) acting Oscars; what
> specifically rings either hollow or genuine (depending on your opinion)
> about their performances? What about the whole "Lolita" issue?; how does
> it compare/contrast with earlier such themes/performances? Director Sam
> Mendes has compared BEAUTY with Billy Wilder films such as THE APARTMENT,
> and said the Wilder's work served as a model for BEAUTY?; does this
> comparison hold, and why or why not? (And how?)
> 
> This is merely a sampling of the kinds of substantive questions that could
> be discussed regarding AMERICAN BEAUTY. If my sense that the film is being
> denigrated due to its success is wrong, then detractors should offer
> reasoned and detailed arguments for negative comments. I hope that one way
> of another, the tone of the discussion changes regarding this or any other
> film that is offered up for group examination.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CHRIS MEISSNER				
> University of Kansas
> Lawrence, KS
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%