The ugly side of American Beauty
William Simcox on immorality in film making


I don't consider myself to be overly moralistic when it comes to cinema-going. I'm capable of enjoying a purely amoral film like Reservoir Dogs. But immoral films are something else, and American Beauty is one of them. While several reviews have described American Beauty as "dark", few, if any, have really explored the depths of misanthropy and cynicism in it.

For those who've not seen it, Lester Burnham is a middle-aged magazine writer who has a chip on his shoulder about his unfulfilling job and loveless marriage. It's not totally clear why his marriage is failing - we are manipulated into believing that it's the fault of his wife, Carolyn, but there's no evidence that he's tried to make it work either. In fact, given his boorishness, his ingratitude, his neglect of their teenage daughter, Jane, and his callous indifference to Carolyn's problems (she is an estate agent struggling to keep her business viable), it's a wonder their marriage has lasted as long as it has. His predictable life changes dramatically when he falls madly in lust with Angela, his daughter's best friend. After overhearing Angela talking about him, he decides he is in with a chance, and feels he has been given a new lease of life. He quits his job and manages to blackmail his boss into giving him a $60 000 redundancy package, most of which he blows on his dream car, weight-training equipment, and drugs. He becomes intolerant of criticism of his increasingly hedonistic and self-centred lifestyle - in one scene, he smashes a dinner plate during a row with his family.

Throughout all this, there is no suggestion that he is just an inadequate loser trying to avoid confronting his problems; on the contrary, he is seen as going through some kind of heroic journey of self-discovery. Meanwhile, his wife has a fling with another estate agent (with both pleasure and profit in mind). When she is rumbled, she almost dies of embarrassment, and takes refuge in her self-help tapes.

The subliminal message is clear: if you're a man, it's okay to stupid, selfish, irresponsible, feckless, lecherous and narcissistic; in short, to behave like a sort of overgrown "new lad". And, if necessary, use violence to get your own way. At least you're not committing the really unpardonable sin, of being "boring". But if you're a woman, diligence and respectability are everything. Step outside your traditional roles, and you do so at your peril. Disgrace, ignominy and near-insanity await. Far better to stand by your man and stick to what you're good at; being a mother, cook and homemaker. Just don't expect thanks or recognition for it, you shrewish, domineering she-devil!

But ultimately, the film is as much anti-male as anti-female. The subtext is: all men are wimps. We can't cope with complexity, adversity or responsibility. We have the potential to be anything we want to be - as long as it doesn't require thought or perseverance. Throughout, Lester is portrayed as a victim of social oppression, despite the fact that he hasn't really suffered all that much. Okay, so he may have a lousy job. But the most positive alternative he can think of is to storm out and get a McJob in a drive-through burger bar (he actually tells his new employer that he wants a job with as little responsibility as possible). He could have tried for promotion. He could have looked for another career that would make better use of his talents and interests. Or he could simply have adopted a less griping attitude, accepted that it's not a perfect world, and that at least his job gives him financial security and the ability to provide for his daughter. And why can't he accept at least some responsibility for the way his marriage has turned out? He whinges that Carolyn isn't the woman he married, but people do change - it's called maturing. And she's still beautiful. What sort of a man is he, to think of ditching her for a 17-year-old cheerleader just because she's liable to get stroppy when he spills beer on the upholstery?

What's so seductive about American Beauty is the way it manages to be reactionary and subversive at the same time. The only character who suffers total humiliation is Colonel Fitz, Lester's ex-Marines officer neighbour. At the end, he has a nervous breakdown and reveals his latent homosexuality. Fitz represents traditional values, and it is obvious from an early stage that the film-makers are setting him up as a sort of "moral target" to be shot down later. A stern disciplinarian with a savage temper, it is revealed that he once sent his son, Ricky, to military school, after catching him smoking dope. The Colonel's fall from grace is meant to imply that any form of discipline - even self-discipline - is unhealthy.

LM magazine has always had a great deal to say on the subject of "victim culture". The idea is that certain groups of people are increasingly seen, and increasingly want to be seen, as victims, and that this seems progressive but is really reactionary because it undermines the idea that people have the potential to change their own lives for the better. I would add that it's reactionary because people with a victim mentality - like Lester Burnham - often end up hurting others.




So what do you think of what you've just read? Please write and tell us!