Little Miss Sunshine (2006, USA, Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris)
Wherein Ben and I find a convergence of opinion.
Ben Begins:
Through sheer serendipity I am au courant. (Snob that I am, I feel the need to explain my being up-to-date.) You sent me the Glen Garry, Glen Ross spoof. I revisited the real thing. This led me to do a little research on Alan Arkin which introduced me to today's title. Seems he's received good reviews for his performance. All of this could easily have come to nothing, but Monica came home with LMS yesterday and all of us watched it together. This morning, Jacob noticed a still from the film in the new
spaper and Monica explained to both of us that it is up for an Oscar and - honestly, who knew without you at OB these days? - the Awards are tomorrow night. So, here I am for once, on top of the times. In honour of this, I will begin with a tag line.
LMS is The Royal Tenenbaums meets Malcom In The Middle in, well, the middle, with a good measure of Weekend At Bernie's thrown in for, well, good measure. (THIS is a tag line? It's hard to believe I once wrote radio advertising.)
Bernie aside, what we are dealing with is what I will call the familial non-conformist comic genre. Naturally, this genre has a solid pedigree, reaching back into literature, theatre, cartooning, etc. But for our present film we need only go back to the dawn of rock and roll and such, when in the 50s a new market was established for cultural commodities catering specifically to adolescence. Prior to this, the familial non-conformist comic genre was constructed fundamentally from the perspective of the parents, if not the father exclusively. Bare minimum, it was adult. Bizarre, zany, wacky, however non-conformist, the adult point of view ensured that the non-conformity never threatened to become serious. The adults in the family were well enough integrated into the status quo and the comedy was safe. The shift from an essentially adult orientation to an adolescent perspective exacts a seemingly significant change in the genre. Anger is admitted into the ranks. Non-conformity now appears to be not just funny eccentricity but also passionate dissatisfaction at the state of things, especially the family itself. I think I capture the spirit of this shift in the genre when I call it "Rebel With Good Cause."
spaper and Monica explained to both of us that it is up for an Oscar and - honestly, who knew without you at OB these days? - the Awards are tomorrow night. So, here I am for once, on top of the times. In honour of this, I will begin with a tag line.LMS is The Royal Tenenbaums meets Malcom In The Middle in, well, the middle, with a good measure of Weekend At Bernie's thrown in for, well, good measure. (THIS is a tag line? It's hard to believe I once wrote radio advertising.)
Bernie aside, what we are dealing with is what I will call the familial non-conformist comic genre. Naturally, this genre has a solid pedigree, reaching back into literature, theatre, cartooning, etc. But for our present film we need only go back to the dawn of rock and roll and such, when in the 50s a new market was established for cultural commodities catering specifically to adolescence. Prior to this, the familial non-conformist comic genre was constructed fundamentally from the perspective of the parents, if not the father exclusively. Bare minimum, it was adult. Bizarre, zany, wacky, however non-conformist, the adult point of view ensured that the non-conformity never threatened to become serious. The adults in the family were well enough integrated into the status quo and the comedy was safe. The shift from an essentially adult orientation to an adolescent perspective exacts a seemingly significant change in the genre. Anger is admitted into the ranks. Non-conformity now appears to be not just funny eccentricity but also passionate dissatisfaction at the state of things, especially the family itself. I think I capture the spirit of this shift in the genre when I call it "Rebel With Good Cause."
I am hardly alone in suggesting that the teenage paradigm culturally introduced in the 50s has never been allowed to go away commercially. Quite the contrary, there seems to be no end to the money that can be made by keeping people is a condition of arrested development. Actually, it's worse. Just as the growth hormones in cow's milk today compel eight year old girls to enter puberty, the penetration of marketing to pre-teens involves an regressive treatment of the culture as a whole, wherein adults are profitably subjected to infantilization. Plus, there are serious ideological benefits too. Ruling classes have always relied on infantilization to maintain authority and this situation presently holds. The requirement that everything be legitimated as democratic today makes it all the more imperative to characterize critique as a passing phase of youth and this is where the restriction of rebelliousness to the inner workings of the family is most ideologically entrenched. We can hear about the the family as dysfunctional six days a week, seven if the telling features jokes, but any portrayal of the society as dysfunctional is broadcast once a month and after midnight.
Whereas The Royal Tenebaums has a decidedly - not adult but - post-teen point of view, and Malcom In The Middle has a decidedly - not childish but - pre-teen point of view, LMS retrieves the "Rebel With Good Cause" perspective of the genuinely teen point of view. The non-conformity of the family is meant to be not just humourous but also meaningful. The blend is akin to poignancy except that poignancy comes out of mature reflection whereas this is all about youthful immediacy. Indeed, feeling unhappy about being trapped in The Now is the pacifying sine qua non of any adolescent genre because - "He'll get over it." As indeed he does in LMS. As indeed they all do. Happy families. Happy endings. No (REAL) worries. Grandpa went out in style and we just know that dad getting over his Mr. Winner complex will, go figure, improve the family's fortunes.
I enjoyed LMS. I liked it for not actually being that funny. I'm not saying the relative non-funniness of it is a sign that is is deep, profound. No way. It is truly trivial, trite even. But the relative non-funniness of it I respect as a sign of the film's committment to an authentically adolescent frame of mind, an intelligent one no less. It's not just hip that grandpa snorts horse and mom puffs on butts, that uncle is too into Proust and junior too into Nietzsche. No, it's so hip it celebrates these misfits, it makes a virtue of their failings, it promotes non-conformity. Of course, the critique coming off all of this is shallow in the extreme. Attacking beauty pagents and self-help programs for be being the vulgar expressions of the culture that they are, is shooting fish in a barrel. But it would be silly to expect more from LMS' truly teenage point of view. Honestly, they drive a VW Microbus. Talk about a tired semiotic for hippie rebellion, it's not even nostalgic at this point, it should have its own key on the keyboard.
And there are some funny bits. And the ensemble cast works well together, although I didn't buy waspy Kinnear as the son of super Yiddish Arkin. And the little girl is a gem. And it might even win some prize tomorrow night, although I doubt it. But I've already forgotten half of the movie and before long, I'll get over it.
And there are some funny bits. And the ensemble cast works well together, although I didn't buy waspy Kinnear as the son of super Yiddish Arkin. And the little girl is a gem. And it might even win some prize tomorrow night, although I doubt it. But I've already forgotten half of the movie and before long, I'll get over it.
And Dan Responds:
No, this won't win any prizes tomorrow, for two reasons. First, as you and Woody know, comedy sits at the children's table when it comes to awards. There are exceptions that prove the rule, including the Woodman's own films, but this leads to the second reason it won't win anything, which is that LMS ain't no vintage Allen. But it is pretty decent for Hollywood escapist fare, and maybe, if Arkin keeps a low enough profile that fools voters into thinking that he really has died, mebbe he can sqeak out a victory in the best supporting actor category (though I kinda preferred Carell's more dialed back performance to Arkin's Grampa Brown S
ugar's over the top-ness, but that's has less to do with the quality of the work--both actors are great, and do just what they're supposed to do with their parts--and more to do with the way the characters are written), but the odds are against him.
I enjoyed some of LMS's more subversive elements, particularly the striptease at the beauty pagent, both Arkin's and Carell's advice to the depressed kid and grandpa's relationship with his granddaughter, but the parent's really didn't work for me. I like both Kinnear and Collette as actors, but Kinnear's a cartoon buffoon (until the finale when he finally shows up parent-wise) and Collette has been given a rather thankless part as ineffectual mom and wife. She sorta buys into her hubby's inspirational schemes, but only so long as there's a chance to make some dough. Also, she tries to be a mom to her kids, but is consistently overwhelmed, overruled or outparented by others around her. And as you noted, some of the pot shots the film takes at contemporary society are too easy. Given that we have a Proustian scholar on the bus, you'd think there'd be an attempt to take digs at some of the more deeply-rooted of this society's ills.
That said, I can't deny that I had a pretty good time while it made its way across the screen. As you said, the film takes these characters seriously--some deserve it, some don't, but at least the film is lacking in po-mo smirk--and that has got to count for something. There's real existential angst here with the kid, Arkin and Carell, and it isn't resolved painlessly. So, despite some missteps, this is not your standard Hollywood road trip/voyage to awareness flick, so you've gotta give the film some props for that.
ugar's over the top-ness, but that's has less to do with the quality of the work--both actors are great, and do just what they're supposed to do with their parts--and more to do with the way the characters are written), but the odds are against him.I enjoyed some of LMS's more subversive elements, particularly the striptease at the beauty pagent, both Arkin's and Carell's advice to the depressed kid and grandpa's relationship with his granddaughter, but the parent's really didn't work for me. I like both Kinnear and Collette as actors, but Kinnear's a cartoon buffoon (until the finale when he finally shows up parent-wise) and Collette has been given a rather thankless part as ineffectual mom and wife. She sorta buys into her hubby's inspirational schemes, but only so long as there's a chance to make some dough. Also, she tries to be a mom to her kids, but is consistently overwhelmed, overruled or outparented by others around her. And as you noted, some of the pot shots the film takes at contemporary society are too easy. Given that we have a Proustian scholar on the bus, you'd think there'd be an attempt to take digs at some of the more deeply-rooted of this society's ills.
That said, I can't deny that I had a pretty good time while it made its way across the screen. As you said, the film takes these characters seriously--some deserve it, some don't, but at least the film is lacking in po-mo smirk--and that has got to count for something. There's real existential angst here with the kid, Arkin and Carell, and it isn't resolved painlessly. So, despite some missteps, this is not your standard Hollywood road trip/voyage to awareness flick, so you've gotta give the film some props for that.
Score: 68/100
12 comments:
Ben,
I'm so glad you made Malcolm In the Middle comparison. LMS reminded me very strongly of something that I couldn't remember, and that's what it was.
I wonder if you could mention other examples you have in mind when you identify this as belonging to the familial non-conformist genre? I'm particularly curious about which ones exhibit an adult or parental viewpoint. The "non-conformist" genre in general seems to me a non-adult point of view by default, since even an adult playing the non-conformist almost becomes, by the same token, a failure as an adult--dysfunctional, irresponsible, asocial, etc--and thus a representation of youth (as an overgrown child or a child who refuses to grow up--Gondry's The Science of Sleep would be a recent example of this).
I'm unsure about the idea that the film's point of view is "truly teenage." Maybe so. I do get the sense that the teenage character is the real voice of the film, but I wonder how truly teenage, or sincere, his "do what you love and fuck the rest" attitude is.
I agree that the ending dubiously implies no more "real" worries. (Though I think it strongly suggests continued misfortunes: this is part of the "fuck the rest" motto--all apparent signs of losing are instead taken as non-conformist badges of honor, so there's no need to anticipate a future of winning pageants and stunning career prospects for all.) And I understand your suggestion that this fits nicely with the "he'll get over it" attitude of the aptly named "Rebel With Good Cause" genre that indulges rebelliousness only to contain it--at least this is how I understood your point about highlighting family dysfunction at the expense of social dysfunction.
But I get a sense that your interpretation downplays the ambivalence of the film on this score. By ending on the "Super Freak" note, LMS encourages a naive form of non-conformism (this is, I think, it's truly "teenage" attitude) in which "being yourself" means an absolute disregard for the opinions of others. But this aspect of LMS is precisely its attempt to accuse the world of dysfunction rather than the family. So the message is not a true happy ending--as I think you were suggesting--that everything's all right. It's that _we're all right_, but the rest of the world is not.
If the film had successfully communicated an unapologetically adolescent form of rebellion--or, on the other hand, if it had successfully exposed the shortsightedness of adolescent rebellion, it would have been more successful. Instead, it tries to get the best of both worlds: radical non-conformity and family unity, a contradictory compromise that deflates any critical edge. The film is shallow, not for an adolescent worldview, but for wedding a shallow version of adolescent rebellion (which is in its truest from an authentic source of autonomy) to a shallow version of maturity (which is in its best forms a focused and disciplined form of autonomy--or the accomplishment of what adolescence aspires to). Its image of adolescence is shallow because it's freedom is purely negative. Its image of adulthood is shallow because it abolishes the negative -- it's the adult eye of the film that projects the happy ending. We're all automatically winners, so nothing needs to change.
CK, Ben's having trouble posting, so here's his response, via email:
Hi CK, Ben here, nice to hear from you. I'm thrilled and delighted by your posting because (a), you made use of something I theorized, on the fly no less; and (b), I think the use you made of it is correct. I hope this makes me look like some kind of noble intellectual who is happy to learn that someone else got it right. What more can I say? I'm flattered and convinced. I think you have Little Miss Sunshine by the tail. I'm just glad I provided you with a glove to wear in order to grasp the film as you do.
You ask me to provides examples of the familial non-conformist comic genre from an adult rather than an adolescent point of view. I have to admit that I had no particular films in mind when I theorized the genre on the fly. That's why I mentioned other art forms, because I was really thinking of stuff like Jamer Thurber's "My Life and Welcome to It" and Charles Adams' monster clan down the street; as well as smatterings of television, the almost surreal non-conformity of George Burns and Gracie Allen and the like. But I have to admit that I am an unrepentant a priori theorist and you have busted me. I would be embarassed if you hadn't done such good work with my theory.
Hey Dan, ha ha ha. I said LMS might win a prize and you said it would not. Best screenplay. Best supporting actor. And now a switch has been flipped and I can post here no problem. Nayah nayah nayah. I lucked out. Eat my shorts. You're a poopoo face. (Hummnn... I forgot you can always regect my submission. Doh!)
Then - Ben
Well, as I posited in an email earlier today, Arkin had a chance of winning if the voters believed that he really had died during filming.
Nobody ever lost money in an Oscar pool by underestimating the intelligence of Academy voters.
But Helen Mirren, aged 61, remains HOT, and Meryl Streep, aged 57 remains the Greatest Actress of All Time (TGAOT). And Marty finally won. You got a sense that it was a relief, more than a celebration.
There's hope for those aging gracefully (and not so gracefully) among us.
Btw, Ben, the work of Wes Anderson works so well for your familial non-conformist genre largely because it is based on the angst-riddled scribblings of J.D. Salinger, a fella whose work you don't particularly like, if I remember correctly. Still, I think that the film critic Robin Wood really is onto something with his critique of the oppressiveness and perversity of the modern nuclear family. There's just something terribly shortsighted and limited about putting all our eggs in one basket.
Dan, it's pertinent that you mention Salinger and also that he is not a big deal for me. When CK asked me for examples of the genre from an adult perspective, Monica (my wife folks)immediately suggested Salinger and I shot this down for not being from an adult perspective (which CK requested specifically) but rather from an adolescent point of view, famously so, in fact. But I wonder. I wonder if my being bugged by The Catcher in the Rye has to do with my feeling that the teenage perspective in it is phoney, (an appropriate concern about a character who accuses everyone of being phoney). I always thought it was my fault for reading the book on a beach in Thailand at the age of 30. Too late, right? But could it be that - contra its reputation - the voice of Holden Caufield is not authentically adolescent but rather an adult's version of this that still smacks of an adult perspective? Just a thought. Or is it just terribly dated?
Turning to the oppressiveness and perversity of the modern nuclear family, well before the likes of Robin Wood, we can at least go back to the likes of Freud. What Wood contributes - from what little I know of him - is a critique of the family as the institutional manifestation of sturctural patriarchy from a gay/queer orientation. In both cases, we are dealing with models of the family that are categorically situated in fully articulated sociological frameworks, i.e., the eggs are still in the one basket but the basket itself is in - metaphor? - a big chicken shack.
Then - Ben
Ben, I know that Salinger is known largely for Catcher in the Rye, but that book features as only one of the Salinger influences, mostly in Rushmore, and significantly less so in Tenenbaums and Bottle Rocket, their first feature (and not at all in The Life Aquatic, for which Anderson took on another writing partner). His other books--Franny and Zooey and 9 Stories in particular--are at least as influential on Anderson and Wilson's ouevre. FAZ is certainly about non-conformist families full of eccentrics, and it is also told from the kid's pov, but these kids are in their twenties, unlike Holden's faux-teenager pov (the kid thinks he's older and wiser than he really is, but he remains in essence a kid). Nine Stories has multiple narrators (short story collections will do that) which often feature these same quirky family units, but from again slightly older pov's. None of them has the specifically adult/parental pov, though the hero of one of the better stories (Down at the Dinghy) is called (drumroll please) Tannenbaum.
Oops...of course I meant that Catcher in the Rye is only one of the influences on ANDERSON'S work, not Salinger's. Erp.
Thanks Ben, I'm glad I wasn't misinterpreting what you said. I don't know why I didn't think of the Addams Family--that seems like an excellent candidate.
Maybe your idea about Salinger as a phony teenager would work for the entire "familial non-conformist" genre. They're not really taking either a parental or adolescent view point. Instead they betray an adult nostalgia for the adolescent's point of view. It certainly makes sense for Catcher in the Rye. I think that whole preoccupation with "phonies" sounds too jaded, too aged, for a teenager. It would also explain why this genre often falls back, as you point out, on youngish adults like the Glass and Tenenbaum siblings instead of real adolescents--to make it more believable. (Thanks for pointing out the Tenenbaums/Down at the Dinghy connection, by the way.)
Maybe that's something that rubs people the wrong way about Wes Anderson? They expect a charmingly naive world view, but detect the bitter aftertaste of disallusionment?
In any case, I'm really intrigued by this genre you've defined--since it's so obvious, but I've never noticed it before and I'm still not sure what to make of it. The combination of non-conformism (which fits so well with adolescent anti-parental angst) and the celebration of the family is strange and fascinating.
Maybe this is a reflection of the non-conformist's longing for community? I'm reminded of Holden Caufield's connection to his sister (ditto in Bottle Rocket), the father substitute/real father theme in Rushmore and Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic's portrayal of the crew of the Bellafonte as a kind of artificial family of freaks.
Wait, there's a true classic of the genre: Freaks. "One of us! One of us!"
Dan,
That "eggs in one basket" joke about the nuclear family killed me.
Well, I think Anderson's world view IS charmingly naive in many ways, so I don't think that's what rubs people the wrong way about him. His films are full of oddballs and obsessive types who don't fit easily into a marketable niche or obvious advertising campaign, which means he's condemned to the outskirts, in the neighborhood of cult cinema. Not that this is a bad thing; so long as he keeps getting to make movies, that is.
As for whether Holden's phoney bashing is preternatural for a kid his age, I'd hafta say no to that. Teenagers LOVE to point out adult hypocrisies; it's one of their central endeavours. Holden's not all that much different in that regard from others his own age. If Holden were around today, he'd dress in black, listen to Marilyn Manson and be labeled a goth.
CK, Ben here. I have been reflecting on your reflections on the familial non-conformist comic genre I postulated. At present, I no longer have anything conceptually invested in the "genre" or "comic" parts and the "familial" feature seems to me now to be derivative if not plainly redundant with respect to the category that concerns me, "non-conformity." What is this exactly?
Contra my contention previously that non-conformity in its most essential expression in a genuinely adolescent point of view, it is actually a genuinely adult point of view. I believe your thinking was correctly leaning in this direction. Non-conformity is not positive rebellion, never mind creative revolution. Non-conformity is negative as the unwillingness and/or inability to acknowledge the status quo. The adolescent may or may not be authentically attempting to negate the existing state of affairs and posit an alternative. But non-conformity categorically does not present the adolescent's point of view. It presents the adult's negative dismissal of whatever frustrations and aspirations the adolescent expresses. In short, it is established authority short-circuiting emergent critique.
Of course, the "adult" is established and the "adolescent" is emergent. But these socio-psychological terms for generational designations in the family are historically very recent and, I suggest, mislead us with respect to the institutional character of the family (and society) throughout most of history. This institutional character is patriarchy.
Feminism has taught us that patriarchy is male rule and queer thinking has taught us that this male rule is also necessarily heterosexual, but we need to remember from nasty power politics that this heterosexual male rule is also that of the elders. In short, I am isolating the rule of the father over the sons, (to say nothing of the daughters). To think of the latter in terms of "adolescence" is both an historical and theoretical trivialization of the precisely paternalistic aspect of patriarchial power.
Any threat posed by the son in the eyes of the father - from the point of view of the king - is contained if not abolutely liquidated by the father reducing it to mere non-conformity. The benevolent tactic is to treat the threat as a passing phase. "He'll get over it." The cruel tactic is to crush the kid like an alien to the tribe. Either way, con-conformity is what dad calls what the son is doing when the son does not obey perfectly.
It has often been said that there are only seven primary cultural forms or some damn number, you know, archetypes. Clearly, I am attempting to point to one now. I have rethought con-conformity in terms of patriarchy not just because I am a theory geek, however. All of this has been on behalf of the example I wish to share. (CK, you did inquire as to examples, back me up here).
Paradise Lost. As I understand Milton, one of his main purposes is to show how Lucifer's self-transformation into Satan was an impossible revolution. The Devil certainly thinks he is a "rebel with good cause," but he is really little more than an infantile-acting-out teenager whom daddy loves so absolutely, he allows the lad to throw the ultimate temper tantrum. That the adolescent angel proves unwilling to get over it does not change the fact one bit. And be clear, God has not made it impossible for him to get over it, the creation is not unable to return to The Creator. The whole problem has to do with the wayward will of the youngster. The Devil is nothing but a non-conformist.
CK, I hope to hear back from you but, please, let's not do The Exorcist again.
Then - Ben
It is a lie that the LMS family is "dysfunctional," yet that's the word continually batted around about that family. Or if they are dysfunctional, then they are in the same way as their VW bus - mechanically dysfunctional. They are mechanically dysfunctional only.
But they are more emotionally well-healed than the Cleavers. When push comes to shove, at every turn along the way, each manages to dish out generous heaping portions of emotional support and reinforcement to the others. The old father gives emotional reinforcement to his son by consoling him over his business failures and makes clear in front of the whole family how proud he is of him. Uncle Frank emotionally bandages the 15 year-old. the mother emotionally bandages the rest of the family, and everybody emotionally bandages Olive. No arguments are left hanging without someone saying their sorry - everybody at all times gets all the closure they need.
Everyone simply has a mechanical issue in some way. But this is the most emotionally nurturing bunch I've ver seen. Bering in a truly dysfunctional family stings. You're cutoff from speaking, your feelings are unvalidated, closure is not reached, and your wounds are left festering. Not with this bunch. Every wound is tightly bandaged and kissed a thousand times.
Not saying it's a bad movie - just don't try and tell me this family is messed up. I would have loved to have had it.
Post a Comment