Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Pleasantville (Director, Writer, Producer: Gary Ross)

 

            Before I begin with my assessment of Pleasantville, I should explain how this film can fall under the guise of science fiction. Frankly, the film pretty much is not science fiction and fits easier into the realm of fantasy instead, as much of what happens blatantly defies the laws of physics and plays out like a fairy tale (and appropriately so in the case of Pleasantville). However, there's one little aspect that brings into Pleasantville a tinge of science fiction: the remote control. The method utilized in the film to transport the two central characters into the television show Pleasantville is based on a technological device, and so it can be argued, albeit in the most ridiculous fashion, that the central characters suffered through quantum teleportation into an alternate dimension with unique laws and physics. So while I'm not going to flat out call Pleasantville science fiction, I figure it is at least arguable that the film has an element of science fiction. And keep in mind, the actual science (or "science") does not necessarily have to hold true to be considered science fiction, as many works from our past that are clearly science fiction would not be so. So that is close enough for me.
            Besides, how else will I be able to discuss one of my favorite films of all time?
            Pleasantville is a film chock full of some of the most clever, well-concocted symbolism I have ever seen (which I won't delve into entirely because part of the fun is discovering much of it oneself, all those little tiny bits like why Huckleberry Finn is mentioned in the film), and unlike some other works I've discussed on the blog, director Gary Ross knew not to also eschew any semblance of a great story to tag along with his themes. This is despite any plot holes, some of which I'm sure were intentional, some which can be disregarded due to Bellisario's Maxim ("Don't examine this too closely", i.e. if it's not a big part of a story, then it's not important enough to question or complain about), and any others left after that do not bog the film down hardly at all. For instance, my only major complaint is the lack of any non-caucasian entities within the film, which is important considering one of the film's major themes is race and racism. However, I am willing to forgive this somewhat since most of the film takes place during the central character's time within the television show Pleasantville. Pleasantville is essentially a silly 1950s sitcom, created back during a time when segregation was still well in place, or just being made illegal (which didn't fully end segregation, especially not back then; it still, in a more subtle way, exists to this day).
            But this film is about far more than just racism, though that is indeed a central theme, and a clever one at that, as more and more characters would turn from black and white to "color" as the film progressed. But there's a deeper philosophical edge to this film than that. For instance, the tagline of the film is, "Nothing is as simple as black and white." This is not merely a statement of the presence (or absence) of color, but also a statement about subjective morality, as opposed to objective morality, the latter of which is generally seen as "black and white" as opposed the former, which is seen as "shades of grey", or in Pleasantville's case a variety of color outside the grey-scale spectrum. And, along with this, characters change from black and white to color showing a character's "true colors" coming to fruition.
            To further add to this is the struggle between cultures and ideologies as more and more people show their true colors, showcasing a struggle between a conservative and arguably liberal viewpoint. The film in particular obviously leans toward the liberal side of the equation, which has caused the film backlash as, with all of this symbolism, the film hits its message over anyone viewing it with the subtlety of a gamma ray burst. However, from what I've seen most of the conservative critics who argue vehemently against the film with its lib'rul bias (which is fine, and expected anyway) do not catch on to the fact that the film also questions itself and essentially states there is no one right path. This is even demonstrated with the scenes shown toward the beginning of the film demonstrating our world is a crapsack world, but in a different way. The lighting of the film outside of the realm of Pleasantville even looks grimier than Pleasantville does. "Nothing is as simple as black and white."
            But the film does demonstrate the 1950s was a time which was not perfect, either, in some ways far less so. This was a necessary message shot straight at a time when 1950s nostalgia (and the 1960s for that matter) was alive and kicking, showcased in other films and projects around that time. Many people nostalgic for the 1950s forgot, never realized, or never even cared to accept the 1950s as an often harrowing time. Many would like to think the 1950s was a happy-go-lucky time where everything was chock full of green grass and fluffy clouds and candy-canes (as long as you were white anyway), not aware, or willfully ignorant of, or even in support of, its Cold War paranoia, anti-communist rhetoric, race issues, censorship (including, most hilariously, of the famed anti-censorship novel Fahrenheit 451, which by the way was also critical of book burning which takes also place in Pleasantville), and rampant, blatant conformity all around.
            But the other problem conservative-leaning people, particularly Christians, had was with the religious symbolism utilized in Pleasantville. The film even holds a lamp shade over one of its uses of concept: the apple, which the central protagonist eats after his beau grabs it from a tree and gives it to him. The character responsible for the protagonist being stuck in Pleasantville (played by 1950s sitcom star Don Knotts), symbolically playing the "God" role, chastises him for this. The film as a whole essentially questions why such "deviance" is ultimately a bad thing, as many in this day and age, for example, wonder why rock and roll was such a problem.
            And so that leads into what every theme in this film can be wrapped up into: freedom vs. conformity. This all leads into the idea of what it means to be free, the consequences of freedom, what one person's idea of freedom is compared to another, and whether one would ultimately prefer freedom or not or what form they would prefer. Some would rather stick to a more dull, but peaceful, existence, while others would stick to a more faulty, but vibrant, existence. Or a mixture of both. There is no one answer, and you never truly know what can happen next, and that's okay.

            Additional super fun fact: This film shares a lot in common with another all-time favorite film called The Truman Show. Both were released the same year, touched on most of the same themes (racism being an exception), had bucket-loads of clever symbolism, were arguably science fiction, and were both even centered around the idea of being stuck in a television show (albeit in different ways).

No comments:

Post a Comment