The two biggest aspects of the movie which call for some discussion are prominently the race and gender roles depicted throughout. As far as race goes, the black man (or any minority for that matter) is represented by Raymond. He is the well educated and upstanding black gardener with whom the main character, Kathy starts to fall in love with. No matter how much he accomplishes in his lifetime, he will still always be a black man in the white man's world. This related to Fanon's discussion of being black. He talks about how a black man will always be a "black man", whereas a white man is simply a "man". This is portrayed in the movie by the fact that Raymond is probably the most educated and civilized character in the whole story, yet he is looked down upon by the white community, who only sees the color of his skin. While this portrayal of complete and mindless racism seems exaggerated, it was commonplace for the time period and is still present in lesser degrees today.
The second issue of gender roles is also a very interesting topic within the film. First of all, the main protagonist is a female, a fact which is sort of uncommon. Because of this, gender roles are sort of reversed and mixed up throughout the whole movie. The most obvious example is the fact that her husband The Rookie is gay. This in itself completely boggles up his role and the expectations which one would normally have from a man. When the issue of her husband's homosexuality arises, she deals with it in a reasonable and mature fashion, sometimes the opposite of the reaction one might expect from a woman. Throughout the movie, Kathy keeps a level head in the midst of all sorts of turmoil, proving that she is a strong person and capable of living without the current family arrangement she is in.
So what is the significance or effect of portraying these gender and race relationships in the 1950s setting? I think the reason for the flat out displays of racism depicted in the film are meant to be a reminder of how illogical and downright stupid the beliefs were which spawned modern day racism. Race is still a prominent issue in society, albeit a seemingly smaller factor than in the past. The film makers were trying to show us how any sort of remainder of racism we may still have is rooted from a deep misunderstanding and is simply unreasonable. The gender roles portrayed are to show us that gender has always been an important factor in society. Woman have always desired to be with the man they want, even if it's not their current husband. And there have always been gay men. (this is debatable, but we will assume it is inherent at birth) These sort of issues were simply covered up in the past, so as to not upset the perfect family image which people wanted to convey. This film helps us to understand that people need to be free to be themselves and to be with the ones they want, not just to marry for money and good looks and stay that way forever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post =) I like that you mention these issues as "covered up in the past." I completely agree. I also think you allude to the idea that these issues are still being covered up (again, great point). But, just to take your ideas further, how do Frank's job and Cathy's impromptu photos also back this claim?
ReplyDeleteI agree that these issues are still present in society. In many ways, though, they have been reversed in that race was an overt issue and homosexuality was covered, whereas now race is covered and homosexuality is an open issue (this is a generalization of course). But perhaps what is most important is pointing out that both of these issues were present, and still are.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I would venture to say that homosexuality has always been present as well. However, it was not treated as it is currently until the end of the 19th century. In fact, the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" did not exist until the end of the 1800s. Before that it would have probably been treated as right v. wrong, normal v. abnormal, natural v. unnatural, etc (this would be in a Judeo-Christian Islamic culture, I can't comment on Eastern cultures). But interestingly enough, if you go back far enough, there was not even a concept for hetero-/homosexuality. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, did not care who you did, but what you did. It was all about the act and maintaining status distinctions between who penetrates and who is penetrated, whether male or female.
i agree with the "cover up the past" statement. i think one thing the 50s setting did achieve is it took an idealized time in our past (white picket fences, "when men were men and women were women") and show that that idealization came with a huge cost.
ReplyDelete