Dear Ray (and many others),

Yes, I did see American Beauty. In fact, it was pretty much obligatory viewing for people interested in movies. Like most of my friends, I liked it a lot because it dealt realistically with topics that American movies rarely touch on.

On the other hand, it was different in an important respect from the movies I usually tend to like the best. Let's see if I can describe this. Many of the movies I like best, especially some of the independent films, have very convincing portrayals of people who I can believe in as real and ordinary. American Beauty, on the other hand, falls into a class of movies where all the characters are exaggerated stereotypes. They are portrayals of types of people one recognizes from real life, but they are nonetheless stereotypes. When done well, this kind of movie can be very good. There was a minor independent film a few years ago called Welcome to the Dollhouse that was of this type. Dr. Strangelove is in this category. Forest Gump was another example.

It's somewhat the difference between Shakespeare and Molière. They're both good dramatists, but I have a harder time being interested in Molière's cartoonish characters.

The Marine Colonel (or was it Army?) next door neighboor in American Beauty was a direct steal of the character in Dr. Strangelove played by George C. Scott. I don't think one was expected to believe in him as a real human being. And I'd say the same was pretty much true for the other characters in the film, although the main character (Kevin Spacey) might have been believable it he hadn't been surrounded by cartoons.

As I say, though, I did like the film quite a bit. Or perhaps, now that I think of it, it might be more accurate to say that I approved of the film.

Definitely see The Limey if you get a chance. The performance by Terrence Stamp is quite good, and just listening to his accent (not cockney; Liverpuddlian?) and slang is worth the admission price. But, more importantly, the editing in the film is amazing. Obviously the somewhat postmodern editing style was not welcome to many people who were expecting a conventional thriller more like Soderbergh's previous film Out of Sight (which was also interesting), judging by the lack of success (of The Limey) at the box office.

Another film I saw recently and went back to see again was Romance. Since it's in French, and because of the radical sexuality, it will probably never play in Las Cruces. (I'm glad I'm not living there.) I'm hoping to write up a review of it to send out, if I get the time. It was the opposite of American Beauty; extremely realistic, about very ordinary people (despite their sexual interests). I liked it immensely, but checking the web, I found that most reviewers (including Roger Ebert) didn't get it at all. The reviewer from Salon seemed to understand more than anybody else.

-----
It is a question not of being happy or fulfilled, but of being on fire. --- Anais Nin

From: Lee Lady
To: Friends
Subject: re: American Beauty
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999

>From: J
>Subject: Re: American Beauty
>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:12:28 -1000 ....
>>American Beauty, on the other
>>hand, falls into a class of movies where all the characters are
>>exaggerated stereotypes. They are portrayals of types of people one
>>recognizes from real life, but they are nonetheless stereotypes.
>
>Actually, I thought that was its strength: it showed people that, if you met
>them, you would dismiss as stereotypes -- and showed the richness of despair
>that underlies the surface. Moreover, it went way out on a philosophical
>limb to begin to suggest some solutions. Brave, heady stuff.
>
>I was made furious during both viewings by audience members who found
>Annette Bening's tears after her failed open house, and Chris Cooper's
>staggering despair as he returned home in the rain after his unsuccessful
>pass, absolutely hilarous.
>
>Well, hell, it was my favorite movie of the last decade, so I'm touchy.

>From: Sharon
>Subject: re: American Beauty
>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999

>The characters were stereotypical. But do you think they could have made
>the same film, with realistic people, a protagonist who spoke to us and for
>whom we cared, and still killed him off at the end? The film moved me hard
>enough; it had been any more real, the ending would have been too hard to
>bear, too dismal for audiences to swallow. What do you think?
>---Sharon

I wish I knew a better word than ``stereotypical'' or ``cartoonish.'' ``Stereotypical'' suggests that the characters are stereotypes within cinema (or fiction), which is not what I meant to say (although I do think it's true of the Chris Cooper character).

The point of the Molièresque style (to use an alternative word) is that characters can in fact be very striking and fresh, and their power comes from the fact that we get a strong sense of recognition that these are very accurate representations of people we have known (and do know). So they are not hackneyed, as the words ``cartoonish'' or ``stereotypical'' might suggest. And yet we respond to them because of their universal qualities rather than qualities which make them unique individuals.

I could have added Star Wars as another movie in the Molièresque tradition. The original Star Trek was more in this tradition than not, in my opinion, but The Next Generation was less so. And yet in some ways the original Star Trek was definitely a better series.

Anyway, I agree with both of you. Clearly the structure of a movie has to match its characters. If American Beauty had been made with very individual, realistic characters, it would have been a very dark tragedy, maybe Bergmanesque.

It's the same as the fact that sitcoms, even the best, require a certain type of characters who are, even though individual, somewhat cartoonish. Now I realize that you guys won't like me comparing AB to a sitcom, since that's a perjorative term (and besides, American Beauty is not one). But after all, the sitcom is a very ancient and honorable form. Shakespeare's comedies are sitcoms. Molière's plays are.

I think that American Beauty is not a sitcom, because of the things Janet mentions. It's not quite a morality play either, though. As Janet says, it takes character types that we often think of as trite, and explores the emotional reality of their lives. It pushes beyond the point where most cinema and fiction takes us.

I think that whether one likes it or not, for most people it's a powerful film. And this is because it makes us look at things we're not used to thinking about.

And yet it's still not the sort of film that I personally like best of all.