_____________________............._____

    F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y

    Journal | Salon | Portal
    PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD
    http://www.film-philosophy.com

    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>.

    ________....

Salon review articles are there to be discussed and contested and continued
by you members, so please send your thoughts to:

    [log in to unmask]

    ______________....