|
I've had a tough time figuring out how I felt
about this movie. I went and saw it again just to see if that
would help.
A brother and sister get blitzed by a magical
remote control (provided by Don Knotts in a delightful
performance as a timely TV repairman) and are transported into a
black and white TV series as the kids in a popular 50s sitcom
(the Donna Reed show is probably the model). David (Tobey
Maguire) is the geeky brother who loves the show and has
memorized it; Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) is the bad-girl sister
who is *not* happy about her temporary removal from her very cool
life in the 90s. ("Look at me! I'm *pasty*!")
As far as the TV world is concerned, David is
Bud and Jennifer is Mary Sue, the popular, pleasant children of
Betty and George Parker (Joan Allen and Bill Macy). Bud works in
the soda shop, and Mary Sue has a boyfriend who wants to hold
hands.
David decides that that the best approach is to
fit right in, although he is late to his job at the soda
shop--where his boss, Mr. Johnson (Jeff Daniels) is completely
unglued by the shift in routine. Jennifer...differs. And takes
her boyfriend to Lover's Lane where they do a *lot* more than
hold hands.
But both of them--one consciously, one
not--slowly wreak havoc on the placid community by introducing an
element the town has never experienced before. Exactly which
element they introduce is not stated--although it is assumed to
be sex, at first. As Jennifer's boyfriend spreads the word about
sex, other kids decide to check it out. And they start to change
from black and white to color--as does the landscape about them.
Betty Parker and Mr. Johnson are the two adults
who are curious about these new changes and ask questions of Bud
and Mary-Sue. Betty learns about sex; Mr. Johnson realizes he is
interested in art.
Up to this point, Pleasantville is one of the
best films of the year. And I think it still gets brownie points
for trying. But the story takes a wrong turn at this point. Some
spoilers if you continue.
While it isn't stated, the element of
transformation can best be described as...intensity. Passion. New
experience. Hence Jennifer doesn't get colorized when she has
sex, because it is nothing new for her.
The people who don't change are confused, at
first. But then, headed by Big Bob, the mayor (JT Walsh in,
sadly, his last performance), they begin to resist the change and
try to control it. The people who are black and white get angry.
Violent. Passionate. So a big plot hole develops--these people
should be changing to color. And they don't. The movie takes a
sharp header downhill. Even worse, later in the movie, the effect
of anger and grief are used to demonstrate how they *can* cause
the change. But in the middle section, this is conveniently
ignored.
What started as a fascinating exploration about
the effect of passion and emotion turns into a simplistic
morality tale about the evolving "coloreds" and the
backwards folk who resent their advancement. Repression,
bookburning, fascist rules.
It recovers from this, barely, by an ending
that returns to the value of change, uncertainty, and passion.
But oh, it could have been so much more. It is, however, very
much worth seeing. Even though I think it fails, ultimately, its
failure is far more interesting than many successes this year.
Also, it's extremely funny and well-acted throughout.
Allen and Daniels are remarkable--they both
manage to portray their character's quest for knowledge as
tentative, yet show the intensity bubbling right beneath the
surface. Allen is always heartbreaking, even when she's
happy--she has one of those personas that just makes me want to
cry, for some reason. One scene has Tobey Maguire applying makeup
to return her to black and white (a neat take on makeup's usual
purpose) and I can't begin to describe how moving it was--or why.
Maguire, Witherspoon, and Macy are excellent as well.
The film is visually breathtaking--from the
first glimpse of a single red rose to the explosion of a tree
into flames to the sheer perfection of a convertible driving
through a flutter of dogwood blossoms, with the colors
interspersed with black and white. I'm not the best judge, since
I usually don't notice cinematography, but I thought this was the
most beautiful film I've ever seen.
I wish it had succeeded in being what it
*could* have been. I can't tell if it fails due to the director's
intent--there's an argument to be made that he intended it to be
a much simpler film--or due to implementation--in which case he
screws up by not thinking through the effects that passion and
change would have on a person.
But certainly worth a look.
Comments on Review:
14690
. Judithathome - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:13
AM PT
CalGal:
re: your observations on Pleasantville
yesterday...we saw it a few weeks ago in a wonderfully restored
movie palace in downtown Hilo, Hawaii. It was the perfect movie
to see in a theater reeking of the late 40s-early 50s.
I felt curiosity was the motivating factor
responsible for the colorization of the town and its inhabitants.
The reason some of them remained in black and white was their
fear of and lack of curiosity for anything new or different. Once
they became curious, they opened themselves up for new experience
and it *colored* their otherwise drab lives.
Just a thought....
14691color="#C8B337" size="4">. Super80 - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:50 AM PT
Judith,
I agree with you - Russell Baker did a nasty
Op-Ed piece in the Week in Review or Saturday's paper that
indicated he thought the colorization was about sex. I don't
think he actually saw the movie because he made some factual foul
ups.
The piece of Pleasantville I seen no one talk about is the way it
pokes at the nostalgia for the fifties. All the charachters in
the TV show are initally two dimensional - no one misses a
basket, geogaphy consists of just the two streets in town. As
their minds open, I noticed different kinds of dress (less
consevative) and jazz and early roc and roll played on the juke
box. To me it indicates that more was happening in the 50's than
what was portrayed in sitcoms, whch we throw up as some kind of
"golden" era.
14692
. cllrdr - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:54 AM PT
That's right, Super. And that's why my friend
Jonathan Rosenbaum, who writes for the "Chicago Reader"
says the film is really about the 90's.
14694
. Judithathome - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:26
AM PT
Super80:
Thanks for your agreement. I grew up in the 50s
and believe me, curiosity was the only way out of the
"cocoon of bland" surrounding us. One of the most
exciting things in the movie to me was the teenagers discovery of
BOOKS...a mirror to my own escape from parental-approved
respectibility.
I agree that the movie had much to say about
the 90s...that is especially true of many adults with aversions
to computers and disdain for what kids are *into* today. But it
is ever thus... the old resent the new but I'm hopeful some of us
can try more colors.(g)
14695
. CalGal - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
Cellar, Judith, Super
In most of the reviews I've read, the emphasis
is on the fact that the TV show took place in the 50s,
positioning the movie as a commentary on the changes between the
50s and the 90s.
The standard interpretation of Pleasantville is
that writer/director Ross is demonstrating the *value* of the
complexity and uncertainty of our times, as opposed to the
plastic, restricting 50s. I think that may be, in fact, what he
was trying for. That would explain the bookburning, the clear
allusion to the pre-Civil Rights days with the depiction of
prejudice against the "coloreds". Conformity was the
desired goal. The price we now pay for our freedom from
conformity is unpredictability, danger, and a near absence of
security.
But the world he creates really isn't about the
50s. It's about the world of a TV show--if it wasn't on the show,
it doesn't exist. The firemen only know how to save cats--because
nothing burns. There are restrooms, but no toilets--since they
were never seen on the show. (Fortunately for Joan Allen, a
bathtub is available.) The basketball teams always win and, as
Super points out, the players never miss a shot. The limits of
the town are the limits of the world--which makes for a pretty
damn funny Geography class. The books in the library have no
words in them. Sex doesn't happen. The people are pleasant and
friendly and utterly clueless.
Super, that's a great point about looking
beneath the surface of the 50s to the reality. Because, of
course, it's true that the 50s weren't all peaches and cream,
even if you were a white-bread suburbanite.
Judith, I hadn't considered curiousity as the
element for transformation. Maybe that is what the director
intended--but it wouldn't explain the transformations at the
end--by anger and grief. It also doesn't explain Bud/David's
transformation.
So I keep coming back to passion--whether it is
curiousity, grief, anger, or courage--being the required element.
I can't find any element that would show that the movie handled
the transformations consistently--which, as I said, is the one
serious flaw.
BTW--Super, your mentioning of the music jogged
my memory. I thought this movie used Take 5 (an admittedly
overused piece) to great effect in that soda shop scene.
The use of Etta James' "At Last" in
the scene with the convertible and the scattering blossom pedals
made a gorgeous scene heartbreakingly perfect. But then, I've
always liked that song.
18046
. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 6:37 AM PT
Cal,
I saw the film
being about choice, not the phony choices available in a
conforming society, but real choices, like good and evil. I did
not see any particular inconsistency in it. The anger expressed
by the mob against the non-conformists seemed in keeping with
their regimentation. The rock-throwers and the bluenoses in the
town hall were not experiencing anything new by getting angry;
they still did not realize they had the freedom to choose. The
Reese Witherspoon character did not change when she had sex
because she too was not yet aware that she actually possessed,
all along, the liberty to choose a different way of living.
I'd like to purchase it, though I think the
cinematography and especially the colorization iconography
probably works best on a big screen.
18050
. CalGal - Feb. 11, 1999 - 7:40 AM PT
Ronski,
Hey, that one has me thinking. But it still
doesn't pass the town riot test.
Consider the Bill Macy approach to the insanity
that invaded his home--confused, questioning passivity. All he
wants is for things to go back the way they were. I can see no
reason they all shouldn't have been like that. The anger was a
choice.
An interesting approach would have been to have
the Walsh character change, hide it, and then use his passion and
power to sway people to following him. But it would have been
more appropriate for the people to stay pleasant and remote--just
doing what the Mayor said, doncha know.
Also, at the end, when the Walsh character
becomes furious and changes, why is it a choice this time, but
not the others?
I think your explanation of choice may be right
on. Mine is experience--but there is no question that the person
has to choose to experience.
But there is no getting around it--the
implementation was flawed. Either he wasn't clear about the town
riot and its meaning, or he hadn't thought it through.
It was #2 on my list of best films of the year,
though. Despite its flaws--or maybe because of them--it's a hell
of a lot of fun to talk about. And it is a gorgeous piece of work
to boot.
18060
. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 8:54 AM PT
Cal,
I would say that for Walsh to become angry in
public, as a politician who normally knows that it is very bad to
lose one's temper and show any real feelings, was to change
dramatically, or choose something new, whereas the anger of the
mob is something natural to mobs, witness lynchings or the movie
chestnut of peasants tracking down the creature. Passivity for
Macy was his normal, regimented state as well, very much in
keeping with the "Father Is An Idiot" style of 50s
sitcoms, though I like Cellar's idea that the film is more about
the 90s than any other period. Still, as you say, fun to talk
about, and thus better than most films this year. It should have
been nominated.
18063
. CalGal - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
Ronski,
"I would say that for Walsh to become
angry in public, as a politician who normally knows that it is
very bad to lose one's temper and show any real feelings, was to
change dramatically, or choose something new, whereas the anger
of the mob is something natural to mobs, witness lynchings or the
movie chestnut of peasants tracking down the creature. "
But the whole point of Pleasantville was that
they didn't *know* what a mob was. And that J.T. Walsh would
never have *known* what it was like to lose his temper.
Again--you may be right in your interpretation
as to the filmmaker's intent, but it wasn't executed properly in
the movie, IMO.
But the first two pics on my years best were
Saving Private Ryan and Pleasantville--both of which I thought
were flawed, but far more moving and involving despite those
flaws than any other movies this year.
I am trying not to be too upset on
Pleasantville's behalf, but when I consider that The Dreck Known
As Elizabeth received an inexplicable BP nom.....well. Enough of
that.
18065. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
Cal,
Very good points. To know in the Biblical sense
is not just the popular wordplay of having sex but, going to Adam
and Eve in the Garden, to choose. I still don't find the flaws
compelling, seeing as I might argue that the townsfolk did not
have to know that they were indeed a mob, or that Walsh had to
understand political propriety to function under it, but I do
have this zen view of life that nothing is perfect, or rather,
that imperfection may be perfection, so I yield to your take.
Thanks for the debate. It's been great fun, because I really
liked the darn film and its theme of awakening.
|
