James L. Brooks "As Good As it Gets" stars Jack Nicholson as the obsessive-compulsive anti-social misanthrope, Helen Hunt as the single mother he falls in love with, and Greg Kinnear as his homosexual neighbor. The film uses clever and realistic dialogue to explore the boundaries of the changing relationships between these three characters. It is a dynamic look at our feelings about mental illness and relationships.
The film presents a interesting challenge for observation in terms of gender and sexuality, hence why we're looking at it here. First off, it has a gay character, something that in and of itself is unusual (although, perhaps it ought not to be, but that's a discussion for another time.) It is a love story, yes, but certainly a non-traditional one. The externalities of the characters make this true.
Let's look at the gay character, Simon, first. The film does certain disservices here. First, the character has effeminate qualities that we traditionally associate with gays. The film fails to break these stereotypes. The character is an artist, and there is a certain expectation culturally for gay individuals to hold more creative jobs. He is also afraid of confrontation and very sensitive, other traits commonly associated with gay males.
There are some positives to how his character is portrayed, however. We learn through the course of the film that his homosexuality has caused rifts between him and his parents, something that many if not most members of the gay community can relate to. Some of the character's submissive traits come into better light here; an audience can implicate the fractured relationship with his father instead of his sexuality. Also, apart from the familial problems that are a fallout from this, he is arguably the most mentally stable character of the group. He doesn't have any of Melvin's (Nicholson) anti social traits, or his obsessive-compulsiveness. Nor does he really have Carol's incessant desire to define herself in terms of others, from her son to the (non-existent) boyfriend.
The character arc of Simon is a complex and dynamic one. He comes to terms with many of his familial issues, and the assault that leaves him undesirous in artistic endeavor is largely resolved. Perhaps the greatest struggle that a heterosexual majority has in understanding a homosexual minority is that they aren't a monolithic entity; a gay individual has thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. just like a straight person. Hence, the more film can display gay characters as real thinking, feeling, complex human beings, the more relevant it becomes to societal relationships. The homosexual aspect of Simon's character isn't dismissed, rather, it is shown as part of who he is. But it is also just part, he is many other things, and there are many events that shape this. The film does well in portraying this, making it an overall positive for how gays are depicted in film.
The gender roles that individuals play in the film deserve perhaps a harsher tone. Out of the main characters, only one is female, and her role is in many ways the typical damsel in distress. Because of her financial situation and her son who has huge medical needs, she is floundering. Through a magnanimous grant, she is given healthcare for her son. This is the impetus for much of the relationship between her and Jack Nicholson's character, Melvin. It is through this that he pursues a relationship.
But even this is more complex than a first glance gives it. She doesn't accept it and then fall for him, rather, she is conflicted about the gift, ultimately deciding to accept it but with huge reservations. She is still repulsed by Melvin, and here we see something that many films lack: complex female characters who aren't simply waiting for men to solve their problems.
Female sexuality plays a role here too: her relationship is pursued partially under protest. Her sexuality isn't merely given as a reward to Melvin for his benevolent gestures, as so often happens in film. Instead, a relationship is slowly pursued as she begins to see him as more human. It grows little by little, rather than the sort of hokey "love at first sight" that typifies most relationships in film. The audience is given, over time, reasons to believe that she would be attracted to him. Granted, not all of these are what we would call good reasons, but they interplay in her character in a believable way. One of the reasons she pursues the relationship, or rather, allows herself to be pursued (a problem in and of itself which we'll address in a moment) is that she has a strong desire simply to be with someone, anyone. While we cluck our tongues at this poor decision, we as an audience nonetheless sympathize, or perhaps even empathize, with the decision. It is something common in relationships, and because it adequately reflects reality, even this is a net positive for the film's depictions of gender and relationships.
Melvin's character is perhaps the most complex. Although he is seemingly our protagonist, and is definitely the character that has the most screen time, he is a deeply flawed individual. I don't doubt that many watchers of this film will actually hate his character. He isn't the prototypical hero of the story; rather, he is a flawed character who has some redeeming qualities who struggles and muddles through the conflicts of the film. Here, too, we see positives for gender portrayal: no longer do we have a powerful male character who succeeds because of his great capability, while the woman is powerless. No, he must be helped into every accomplishment by others, requiring advice and assistance from those around him for every inch that he gets. Here too is a more relatable male character. Males are not simply powerful heroes who struggle through conflict but ultimately succeed in every aspect, rather, they, as is true of everyone, are complex and non-monolithic, with individual thoughts, feelings, and capabilities.
Perhaps the biggest failing of the film in terms of gender and sexuality is how it portrays the arc of the relationship between Melvin and Carol. Melvin is the pursuer, and Carol is the pursued. Although it is done in many non-traditional ways, the end result is the Hollywood ending: guy gets girl. Never is Carol the pursuer, always the pursued. And Melvin, for all his failings and caustic personality traits, nonetheless gets the object of his desire. Sure, this isn't an unequivocal victory: he has to change some of his personality traits, and it is suggested that this will continue even after the film's end. But the guy does get the girl. Carol, for all her complexity, manages to fall for him (although with reservations.)
Although this is the Hollywood ending, it has more believability than most. First, the changing arcs of Carol and Melvin's characters have believable intersections. In many ways, they are "right for each other." And we can see their individual perspectives about relationships come into play. Melvin has the narcissistic belief in the accuracy of his own choices, hence, if he is attracted to Carol, he believes that he ought to be in a relationship with her. For Carol's part, her need to be part of a relationship causes her to ignore many warning signs and pursue the only relationship option that is viable for her.
Simon, however, is paired with no one. The film fails to capitalize on the opportunity to show a complex homosexual relationship, one that has all the trappings and failings of a heterosexual one. This demonstrates that while American audiences are ready for homosexual characters, a homosexual relationship that is complex and complicated is still more difficult to swallow.
Nevertheless, for all its complexity and nuance, and despite its many failings, As Good As it Gets becomes a net positive in terms of gender portrayal and sexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment